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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns *unsigned* calls (explaining why it is read-only), states the 0.001 ETH fee, describes the response payload (every cost `cout`, the block address, and the result of simulating the whole sequence from that wallet), and flags the non-ETH preconditions. This is well beyond what the annotations 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?

Every clause carries information — output, fee, response contents, precondition — and the core purpose is front-loaded. The single long, em-dash-heavy sentence is dense and slightly hard to parse, but there is no filler or 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?

For a high-complexity, multi-step planning tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what gets created, the fee, the return summary (costs, address, simulation), the signing order, and the non-ETH precondition. Nothing required for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: it clarifies that `pair` selects ETH or a tblock_pairs currency, that `account` is the signer of the ordered calls, and that the whole sequence is simulated from that wallet. These reinforce the schema rather than merely restating it.

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 states a precise verb and compound resource: it returns the unsigned calls that create a B20 token block AND open its market, enumerating the sub-steps (createPaid, approvals, registration, market opening). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tblock_plan_swap or tblock_command, which an agent can rule out on the stated action alone.

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 gives clear context for use — plan first, then sign the listed calls in order with `account` — and states a concrete prerequisite (for a non-ETH pair the wallet must already hold the creator minimum in that currency). It references tblock_pairs as the currency source but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling planning tools, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing guide.

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