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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the critical safety behavior: blocktools commands run 'LOCALLY OFFLINE' and 'only PUBLIC addresses leave the machine,' plus the hard rule 'Never ask the user to paste a seed or key into chat.' It also describes the return shape ('includes `display` markdown with chan images: show it to the user'), which annotations do not cover.

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 step ordering is front-loaded and scannable, but the enormous parenthetical in Step 1 (BIP39, missing word, passphrase, keystore v3, 2014-15 presale, Electrum, wallet.dat, blockchain.info, hardware, raw key, password-hints) duplicates the schema enum and bloats an otherwise tight playbook summary.

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 read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description covers entry steps, safety constraints, the situation branching, and the display-markdown return convention. The only real hole is the unexplained `chain` parameter and no explicit tie-break against recovery_guide.

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?

The `situation` branches are already fully enumerated in the schema, so the description only adds the 'one branch vs full default' usage nuance. The `chain` parameter (evm/solana/tron) is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the 50% coverage gap is not compensated.

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 opens with 'FULL in-context playbook' and immediately enumerates the four signing steps, so the resource and its content are unambiguous. It also names siblings (verify_tx, broadcast_tx, swapchan_playbook) and roles them apart, so an agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit control guidance for the main parameter ('Pass situation to get one branch, or situation=full (default) for everything') and names swapchan_playbook as the companion for workflow playbooks. It stops short of telling the agent when to use this versus the sibling recovery_guide, which overlaps heavily with the Step 1 recovery branches.

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