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

Annotations only mark the tool as read-only and open-world; the description adds that it returns unsigned calls rather than executing, approves exactly rolls x 0.50 USDC, uses rollWithPass when a day pass is active, resolves after 2 blocks, scores traits in common out of 5, reads mutable live prizes, caps prizes at the pot, defaults the guess from the wallet's ticket face, and refuses practice mode.

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 front-loaded with the return type and batch behavior, and every sentence carries operational detail about payment, day pass, timing, prizes, default guess, or refusal. It is dense and could be easier to scan as bullets, but there is little filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description identifies the return as unsigned calls for one wallet_sendCalls batch and explains the refusal case. It covers the paid and day-pass paths, block timing, live prize source, default guess, and wallet-signing requirement, which is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds real meaning: guess defaults to the SHA-256(wallet|day) ticket face, rolls affects both exact payment and call count, and the guess is scored by traits in common out of 5. Some parameter details repeat the schema, but the added default derivation and gameplay semantics justify more than baseline credit.

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: it returns unsigned calls for 1-10 BlockRolls rolls in one wallet_sendCalls batch signed by wallet. It also distinguishes the planning output from live contract-state reads by naming tblock_game_state for prizes/minScore, and distinguishes the paid path from the day-pass path.

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?

Explains the primary context, planning a roll batch before signing, and gives a clear when-not case: it is refused with state when no contract is served in practice mode, so nothing should be signed. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling planning tools such as tblock_plan_birth, tblock_plan_settle, or tblock_plan_task, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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