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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs incremental detail. It adds the no-task listing behavior and tells the agent the output is procedural (exact button names), which goes beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about length or pagination of the guide content.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary behavior first and the no-argument fallback second. No filler, and the example list is short enough to inform without bloating.

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?

One optional enum parameter, no output schema, and annotations that cover the safety profile; the description supplies the missing output nature (step-by-step UI instructions) and the fallback behavior, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single enum parameter already documents 'Leave out to list them all,' so the description's 'Without a task, lists the tasks' largely restates the schema. The parenthetical task examples hint at the enum's scope but add no per-value meaning.

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 and output shape: step-by-step instructions with exact button names for one task on iomarkets.tech, with concrete task examples (checking a message, CI, verifying a proof, Data API). The how-to/UI framing separates it from verification siblings like verify_proof or explain_term, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly covers both invocation modes: with a task it returns that task's instructions, without a task it lists available tasks. That is clear usage context, but it never says when a sibling such as explain_issue or get_sample is the better choice.

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