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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool returns a 'plan' with instructions, not that it executes anything, which inherently signals read-only behavior. It also describes the return content in useful detail (bridge URLs, calldata, burn instructions), going beyond a minimal description. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not execute transactions or mention any potential side effects, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 primary action ('Build a cross-chain looksmaxx plan'). It efficiently conveys scope, output, and supported chains without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 is fairly complete for a planning tool with no output schema. It explains what the tool does, the input context (supported chains), and what the output will be (step-by-step plan with specific artifacts). It could be more complete by explicitly noting that no funds are moved or providing a comparison to related sibling tools, but given the complexity, it covers the essentials well.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The tool description adds context by listing supported chains and the nature of the plan (bridge URLs, calldata, burn instructions), which helps understand the purpose of the parameters. However, it does not add any specific parameter syntax or behavioral details beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('cross-chain looksmaxx plan') with a clear scope (from supported chains to MegaETH). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the output (bridge URLs, swap calldata, burn instructions) and enumerating source chains, making it unique among the more generic get_* and build_* tools.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need a cross-chain plan from one of the listed chains to MegaETH. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_looksmaxx_plan or get_bridge_info, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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