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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by naming the auth requirement ('wallet-session Bearer token') and clarifying that no signing occurs, which is useful for an agent deciding whether it can call this directly.

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?

Three terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with the verb. The 'Set contract for historical cases' fragment is slightly cryptic but earns its place by touching a parameter.

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?

With readOnly annotations covering safety and no output schema needed, the gap is documentation of the three undocumented params (especially chain_id), which the description barely addresses; adequate but with a clear hole.

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 there are 3 parameters. The description only gestures at 'contract' (for historical cases) and implies case_id via 'case'; chain_id, its default, and the meaning/format of contract are left entirely unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Read a ... case'), and the escrow domain plus 'case' distinguishes it from sibling prepare_escrow_action, which mutates. However, 'private registered-network case' is jargon that doesn't fully clarify what a case is.

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?

Offers an implied usage hint ('Set contract for historical cases') that selects behavior for the contract param, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not and never names the alternative (prepare_escrow_action) that an agent would otherwise confuse this with.

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