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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful decode-coverage behavior: bank, staking, gov, and authz messages are fully decoded while others degrade to type URL plus raw hex.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format, followed by the output/coverage caveat. No 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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return shape (messages, fee, gas, signers, signatures) and the partial-decode caveat, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Complete for a single-param read tool.

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 schema already describes the base64 TxRaw bytes and CometBFT RPC origin. The description largely echoes that (adding only the data.txs location), so it doesn't add much beyond the schema baseline.

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 (decodes), resource (raw signed Cosmos SDK transaction), and input format (base64 TxRaw bytes from a CometBFT block). This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like jwt_decode and base64.

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 implies the use case (decoding a CometBFT-sourced raw tx) but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable from context rather than explicit.

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