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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It explains the behavior: returns a payload to sign, the server does not hold the key, and the relayer broadcasts on submission. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits but is transparent about the core workflow and security.

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 deliver essential information efficiently. The most critical action ('Plan a gasless cross-chain move') is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the overall purpose and workflow adequately. It lacks detail on the returned payload structure and error scenarios, but the presence of sibling tools like 'robyn_route_status' may cover status tracking.

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 coverage is 50% with only three parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for any parameters, missing an opportunity to clarify formats (e.g., chain IDs as numbers or strings) or the optional 'toAddress' field.

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 plans a gasless cross-chain move and returns a payload to sign. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing 'robyn_submit' for submission, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a sequential workflow: call this, sign the returned payload, then call 'robyn_submit'. It also notes the server never holds the key, which is a key usage caveat. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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