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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states that the tool validates the worker selection, returns a request shape (not executing it), and that the server never receives wallet private keys. This adds meaningful security and execution context beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't mention error behaviors or side effects.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by execution and security notes. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 provides the core purpose and execution guidance, but it lacks details about the input object structure, return value format beyond 'HTTP request shape', and potential validation errors. Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly, though the sibling tools provide some contextual framework.

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 only mentions 'worker selection' but does not explain how to construct the 'input' object or how each worker uses it. The worker enum is in the schema, but the input object's structure is entirely unspecified, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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: 'Validate worker selection and return the exact HTTP request shape.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tools (list_diem_workers, quote_diem_worker). It also clarifies what the output is, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context by advising how to execute the prepared request ('Execute it with an x402-capable client or through the CDP Bazaar MCP server'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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