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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (fees, tx count, timing) and importantly reveals the quote costs $0.001 USDC via x402, a key behavioral trait. It doesn't mention auth or side effects, but 'cost estimate' implies no token movement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The cost disclosure is essential and concise. 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?

Given a simple 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what it returns and the cost. It could explicitly say 'does not send tokens' but 'cost estimate' implies that. Fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already explains both 'token' and 'recipients'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get a cost estimate') and names the resource ('Spraay batch send on Solana'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tools that actually send or check status. It immediately conveys what the tool does.

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 implies usage context: cost estimate before batch send. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'Get a cost estimate' naturally positions it as a precursor to the batch send tools. Clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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