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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does reveal a key behavioral trait: the active/inactive status depends on token standard. However, it does not disclose other side effects like idempotency, failure modes, or required prior steps (beyond 'deployed'), leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two clear sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second adds a critical conditional behavior. No wasted words, and it is easy to parse.

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 description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral distinction, but with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, more context could be useful—such as how this differs from create_loyalty_program, behavior on duplicate token addresses, or what the tool returns. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic meaning to the token_standard parameter by explaining that B20 tokens become active and legacy ERC-20 become inactive, which helps agents map the parameter to real-world behavior. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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: registering a deployed token as a loyalty program in the database. It distinguishes from siblings like create_loyalty_program by specifying 'deployed token' and adds behavioral nuance (B20 active, ERC-20 inactive), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage when a token is deployed and needs to be registered, and the B20/ERC-20 distinction gives conditional behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_loyalty_program or activate_loyalty_program, nor does it provide exclusions.

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