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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavioral context: the 98/2 split, network-fee estimation, and precondition checks (recipient exists and is token-associated). It also clarifies that it moves nothing and prevents unsettleable tips.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses short sentences for safety and guidance. Three sentences, no wasted words; each adds useful context.

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 preview tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: expected outputs (net amounts, fees), precondition checks, and safety profile. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the 98/2 split and network fees but does not add syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides for asset, recipient, and amount_hbar.

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 (Preview) and resource (tip), explains output (net amounts after 98/2 split, estimated network fees) and precondition checks. Clearly differentiates itself from prepare_tip by being the read-only preview step.

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 instructs to call before any flow that moves value and explains what it catches (tips that couldn't settle). Implies the before-preparing workflow, but does not explicitly name prepare_tip as the alternative or state when not to use it.

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