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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses the signature integrity (swapping components invalidates), the verdict being the weakest of its parts, the meaning of 'undetermined' (not verified), and the presence of 'unavailable' components with reasons and the 'incomplete' check. These behaviors are critical for correct use and go far beyond what a schema could convey.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: the component list, the signing property, the verdict warning, and the unavailable/incomplete note. It is front-loaded with the most important content and flows logically from what the tool produces to how to interpret it, 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 no output schema, the description effectively explains the return semantics: what components the bundle contains, how to interpret the verdict (including the dangerous 'undetermined' case), and how missing components are signaled. It also covers the signature invalidation constraint, making the description complete enough for an agent to safely invoke and present the tool's output.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but it doesn't need to because the schema already describes 'id', 'minAmount', and 'recipient' adequately. The description focuses on the tool's output and interpretation, not on parameter details.

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 opens with 'Assembles EVERYTHING about a settled transfer in one call' and explicitly enumerates the components (on-chain verification, fee breakdown, alternative route cost, delivery time), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself as 'the artefact to hand to a principal who was not there', differentiating it from simple verification or query 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?

It clearly states when to use it: to present evidence to a principal who was not present. It adds a strong procedural instruction ('READ verdict BEFORE PRESENTING IT') and explains what to do if verdict is undetermined. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusion/alternatives of a 5.

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