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

With no annotations, the description clearly states that the tool returns unsigned data and does not execute the burn—it explicitly defers the actual relay to a POST call. This prevents misuse as a direct burn execution tool.

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 sentences with no waste: states the return value, the signature step, and the next action.

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 simple one-parameter info getter, the description covers purpose, output, and follow-up action. Lack of output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of signature payload and approval status.

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 sole parameter `address` is fully described in the schema ('Wallet address (0x...)'), so the description adds no additional semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies a 'get' operation for EIP-712 typed data specific to gasless burns, distinguishing it from transaction-building siblings by focusing on the signing payload and approval check.

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 outlines the workflow: get the payload, have the wallet sign, then POST to a relay endpoint. This implies the tool is for preparing gasless burns, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like build_* tools.

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