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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: the server is keyless, pre-flight checks for Solana SPL, error handling with structured WRONG_DESTINATION error, indeterminate fall-through, and that the quote remains valid on failure. This is comprehensive and goes beyond basic expectations.

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 description is a single dense paragraph containing all necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given the complexity (payment recording with pre-flight checks, error handling), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behaviors thoroughly. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains all four parameters: tx_sig (pass the signature), pay_req_id (auto-resolved from state), chain and pay_asset (identify the rail with examples, defaults to quote's choice). It does not explicitly map to property names but context is clear.

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 clearly states 'Record an externally-executed on-chain payment' with a specific verb ('record') and resource ('on-chain payment'). It also positions itself as 'Step 2' in a sequence, distinguishing it from sibling tools like nukez_quote and nukez_confirm.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: after executing a transfer yourself, pass the signature. It mentions auto-resolution from nukez_quote and defaults. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like nukez_verify.

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