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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing domain constraints an agent could not infer — HBAR-only tips, the 98/2 split enforced on-chain, and that USDC is only an x402 service-payment rail. That materially prevents misuse. It stops short of describing auth needs or freshness/pagination of the price.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the constraint, then the routing hint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so qualitatively (asset list plus price). Combined with the constraint disclosures and the quote_tip hand-off, 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 (list) and resource (tip assets) plus the exact payload content: which assets can be tipped and the live HBAR/USD price. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like quote_tip, recent_tips, and verify_tip by defining its scope as asset eligibility plus pricing.

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?

Gives a clear use context (pricing decisions) and explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Call quote_tip before any tip to preview exact amounts and preconditions.' It does not spell out when-not to use it, but the routing to the alternative is explicit enough to guide selection.

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