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

Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the live nature of the data and the specific verdict/recommendation returned, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outcomes, then immediately adds the practical use-case. Every part earns its place without any padding or repetition.

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 read-only nature, complete optional-parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. Knowing which metrics are returned and when to call it is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (depth and agent_id), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, such as how depth influences results, but the schema already covers the necessary semantics, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get live Base Network Pulse,' and lists the exact output components (base fee, EIP-1559 projection, utilization, USD settlement cost, verdict). It clearly ties the tool to a settle-now vs hold recommendation, which differentiates it from sibling tools like swarm.settle or x402.pay_and_fetch.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Call before settling on Base when you need a settle-now vs hold recommendation.' This gives clear situational guidance, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just 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.