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

Annotations only tell the agent it is non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds the crucial interaction model beyond annotations: 'Commands are proposals: the block's brain accepts or refuses each task, and only the user's wallet signs,' plus the manual step 'Give the link to the user,' clarifying the agent cannot complete the flow itself.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the return value, followed by workflow guidance. The tab enumeration '(the block in the centre; Market, Trade, Brain and Chat tabs)' is somewhat verbose but helps the agent describe the panel, so only minor trimming is warranted.

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, the description explains the return value (a link), the required user action, the sibling workflow, and the proposal/signing behavioral model. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single optional 'block' parameter is already documented as 'the block to show first.' The description references the block only incidentally ('the block in the centre') and adds no format or selection semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 fits.

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: 'Opens a remote-control session and returns the link of the TokenizedBlock control panel.' It further specifies the resource as a visual dashboard with named tabs, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like tblock_command or tblock_panel_state without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Give the link to the user. Then send commands with tblock_command and read what happened with tblock_panel_state.' This names the alternative tools and the sequence for using them, leaving little to inference.

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