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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the title: it discloses the refund mechanism ('The pair refunds whichever side is over-supplied') and staking eligibility ('LP shares returned are stake-eligible in JESTERGOONER V4'). However, it does not describe the tool's output (e.g., whether it returns a signed transaction or requires execution) or mention permissions/side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially covers it.

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, directly states the primary action first, and includes valuable extra context (refund and staking) without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

This is a transaction builder with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns and how to proceed. It omits the return type (e.g., unsigned transaction data) and does not mention that the built transaction can be passed to sibling tools like build_execute_tx. The refund and staking notes are helpful, but the missing execution flow is a significant gap.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (amountMC, amountMG, recipient, and optional address). The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond associating amountMC and amountMG with the approve and addLiquidity steps. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Build approve(MC) + approve(MG) + addLiquidity on MegaChadLP MC/MG.' It identifies the specific resource (MegaChadLP) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_amm_swap_tx and build_staking_tx by focusing on liquidity addition.

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?

Usage context is implied through the description ('Build approve(MC) + approve(MG) + addLiquidity'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as build_amm_swap_tx or build_staking_tx. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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