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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, and the description is consistent with them, adding that the check is an on-chain mainnet lookup. The remaining behavioral claims (non-custodial, never holds keys, returns unsigned transactions, spot only) describe the desk generally, not this read-only check, and add little for this tool specifically.

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 purpose and gating behavior are front-loaded correctly, but roughly half the text is trailing boilerplate ('non-custodial... never moves funds', 'Spot only, no leverage', 'Education only, not financial advice') that is not actionable for a holder check and dilutes the signal.

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 single-parameter gating probe with no output schema, the description covers what the call means and what the result gates, but never states the return shape (e.g., a boolean held/not-held), which an agent must know to branch on the result.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'address' as the caller's public Sui address with the warning never to send a key. The description adds no further syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('check'), a specific resource (the Secret Journals license token), and the exact chain (Sui mainnet), so the agent knows this is an on-chain license-gating probe rather than a balance or market call. No sibling tool does this, so it is unmistakable in the toolset.

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?

It explains the consequence of each result: holders unlock the extra read-only tool golden_path_market_read, non-holders retain all basic tools, which is genuinely useful routing information. It stops short of saying when in a workflow to call it (e.g., before attempting gated tools), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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