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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals atomic submission via Multicall3, chain-checking and simulation, live-NAV fee payment, and return of transaction hash/outcome. It also explicitly warns that this moves funds, reinforcing the destructiveHint annotation with actionable context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then compactly covers payload, execution behavior, fee, return value, and a safety warning. Every sentence contributes necessary information and there is no filler.

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?

For a tool with nested parameters, atomic on-chain execution, and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, mechanics, return value, and risk. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke it is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful provenance: both payment and fee must come from prepare_gblin_payment with relay: true and be signed by the payer's wallet, which is not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb ('relay') and resource ('signed GBLIN payment on chain') and clarifies the niche use case: a payer holding no ETH. It clearly differentiates itself from prepare/verify sibling tools by describing the on-chain submission step.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when the payer holds no ETH and when authorizations were prepared with relay: true. It also warns to run it only with authorizations the payer meant to sign. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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