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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only operation, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the on-chain mechanism (Memo Program instruction), the cryptographic and immutable nature of the evidence, and the return value ('verified: true/false with the on-chain evidence'). This is rich and helpful.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains the technical proof, and the third provides usage guidance and expected output. No waste or irrelevant information.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the operation's purpose, method, use case, and return value. It is complete and self-contained, likely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 fully describes the single required parameter ('signature' with description 'Solana transaction signature to verify'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Verify'), a specific resource ('a Solana transaction'), and a distinctive method (checking for the Blueprint Memo Program instruction). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_code_integrity or check_balance.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to verify any claim that a stake was placed through Blueprint,' providing clear guidance on when to apply the tool. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the use case is strongly defined and relevant to the sibling context.

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