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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the zero-custody pattern: it builds an unsigned transaction and returns it for client-side signing. This goes beyond the annotations and explains the tool's non-custodial nature, which is essential for understanding its side effects. It does not detail any additional side effects or error conditions, but the core behavior is well conveyed.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides context about Blueprint, and the third gives practical donation amounts. It is succinct, well-structured, and free of redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand and act on.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no output schema) and existing annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how it behaves (returns unsigned transaction), and even offers suggested inputs. The coverage is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds value by suggesting specific amounts (0.01, 0.1, 1 SOL) that map to the amountSol parameter, giving practical guidance beyond the schema's min/max constraints. It does not elaborate on walletAddress beyond what the schema provides, but the overall enrichment justifies a 4.

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 primary action: 'Build an unsigned SOL transfer to support Blueprint development.' It uses a specific verb ('build') and resource ('unsigned SOL transfer'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on donations to Blueprint, which is unique among the listed transaction tools.

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 context for when to use the tool: when making a donation to support Blueprint development. It also explains the zero-custody pattern ('unsigned transaction returned, you sign client-side'), aligning with similar tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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