Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows some operations here can mutate state. The description adds useful validation context (amount must be >= 1) and action-specific required fields, but it does not disclose whether transfers are irreversible, whether authentication/authorization is required, or what side effects occur beyond the annotation flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and then organized into a compact Args block, making it easy to scan. The parameter listing duplicates the schema, but given the multi-action nature it remains reasonably efficient and not bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter multi-action tool with an output schema and full input schema descriptions, the description covers the action menu and per-action required parameters adequately. It omits some behavioral details such as transfer irreversibility and auth requirements, but annotations cover the destructive nature and the output schema handles return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter in detail. The description largely repeats the schema descriptions, including action-conditional requirements, and adds little semantic meaning beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names the resource (MolTrust credits) and gives a concrete action menu: check balance, view pricing, transfer credits, view transaction history. It is clear what the tool does, though the multi-action nature means it is less sharply scoped than a single-purpose tool, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling moltrust_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The Args section clearly maps each action to its required parameters, giving an agent the context needed to choose and invoke the right variant. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, but for a multi-action tool the action-level guidance is clear enough to be above baseline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.