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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the multi-step process (wallet check, purchase, provisioning) and lists providers and payment chains. However, it omits details on error handling, destructiveness, idempotency, or cost implications, which would help the agent assess risk.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage modes, then configuration details. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (multi-step setup, multiple providers, payment chains, two modes), the description covers essential aspects adequately. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but mentioning the output type (e.g., receipt_id) would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'provider' by listing options and 'receipt_id' by describing its role in rehydration. However, 'units' and 'envelope' are not explained beyond their names, leaving their purpose ambiguous.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Set up Nukez storage' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nukez_provision and nukez_pay by combining wallet check, purchase, and provisioning in a single call. It also explains two distinct usage modes: no-args full flow and receipt_id rehydration.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Call with no args' or 'Call with receipt_id'), and lists supported providers and payment chains, aiding decision-making. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like nukez_provision for partial setup.

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