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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: fee-first ordering, fee charged in merchant's loyalty tokens (not USDC), the need to confirm via a follow-up call, and blocking behavior for unconfirmed fees. This goes beyond minimal and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and dependencies.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, fee order, fee currency, submission method, follow-up requirement, and blocking condition. No fluff; the structure flows logically from what the tool does to how to use it. The length is justified by the tool's 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?

The tool has a complex workflow with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the critical context: what is returned (a calls[] bundle), how to execute it (EIP-5792), what to do next (confirm_mint_fee), and downstream effects (blocked mints). This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the fee being in merchant tokens but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Record mint intent and get a fee-first calls[] bundle.' It specifies the resource (loyalty tokens) and the exact behavior (fee mint before recipient mint), distinguishing it from siblings like confirm_mint_fee and transfer_loyalty_tokens.

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 a clear usage workflow: submit the calls in order, optionally via EIP-5792, then call confirm_mint_fee with the fee tx hash. It also warns that unconfirmed fee obligations block future mints. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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