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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: the phrase transits the server (no logging/persistence), a network observer could see bytes, the tool is rate-limited, and the resulting UFVK is read-only. This goes beyond minimal disclosure and covers security implications.

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 compact and well-structured: it starts with the action, then covers rate limit, security, alternative, and a note on the output type. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the sensitive nature of the operation and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, security implications, rate limit, alternative, and read-only nature of the result. It is complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke it and to understand the trade-offs.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the 12/24-word phrase constraint already present in the schema and mentions the Zcash-only chain, but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: it hands a BIP-39 mnemonic to a CLI and returns the matching UFVK. This is distinct from sibling tools focused on watch creation or info, and the title reinforces the purpose.

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 description explicitly mentions the security trade-off and provides a safer alternative (deriving offline), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also notes the rate limit, setting usage expectations.

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