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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it decodes ERC-20 Transfer logs, cross-checks Robyn's receipt, and defines a three-valued verdict including the meaning of 'undetermined'. It also warns about non-re-derivable rails, offering deep insight beyond the schema.

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?

While detailed, every sentence provides necessary information: purpose, optional parameters, decoding behavior, verdict semantics, and usage warnings. Information is front-loaded with clear formatting and the verdict is highlighted, making it easy to scan. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers core functionality, parameter usage, and result interpretation thoroughly. It explicitly addresses edge cases like unreachable chains and non-re-derivable rails, making the description complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds functional meaning: explains that 'recipient' asserts who should be paid and 'minAmount' asserts the minimum arrival, and that 'id' can be a transfer id or tx hash. This enriches the schema's raw definitions and clarifies how parameters are used in verification.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check what ACTUALLY happened') and clearly identifies the resource ('a settled transfer against the destination chain'). It distinguishes this tool from Robyn's own database and covers the optional assertions of recipient and minAmount, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings like robyn_route_status.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to verify settled transfers against the chain rather than Robyn's database. It also provides a clear exclusion rule: 'undetermined' must never be treated as success, with specific examples of when undetermined occurs. This gives strong guidance on interpretation and limits.

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