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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: it never submits a transaction and requires caller approval, which complements readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. Clarifies that the operation is a safe verification step rather than a chain write. Does not disclose idempotency behavior, but the annotation idempotentHint=true covers that.

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 concise sentences with no waste, front-loading the action and then the key behavioral constraints. Every word earns its place.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description should explain parameter roles and return/effect semantics. It covers the high-level purpose and transaction safety but leaves parameter meaning and workflow advancement details unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about the four required parameters (access_token, session_id, signature, idempotency_key). The agent gets no format, source, or meaning guidance from the description; it must infer everything from names and types.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (caller-submitted finalized Solana source signature) and notes it advances the workflow. It distinguishes itself from observation siblings (assetfare_observe_*) and preparation siblings (assetfare_prepare_*), though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Implies usage via 'caller-submitted finalized' and 'advance the workflow', suggesting it follows a source action. But no explicit when-to-use vs siblings, no prerequisites stated, and no exclusions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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