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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output units, observed data, and non-predictive nature, but does not mention read-only behavior, failure modes, or data source.

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?

Two compact sentences convey the core output, units, optional filter, and key limitation without extraneous detail.

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?

Sufficient context is provided for a call: output shape, units, optional filter, and non-guarantee caveat. Slightly more detail about interpretation of the bands could improve completeness given no output schema.

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 only parameter accounts is already fully described in the schema; the prose adds little beyond restating that it narrows the sample to write-locked transactions.

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?

Clearly states it returns observed priority-fee distribution with percentiles and suggested bands in micro-lamports per compute unit, and distinguishes this from prediction by emphasizing observed history.

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?

Implicitly indicates use for recent historical fee context and optional account filtering, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like solmachina_tipfloor or state when this tool should be preferred.

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