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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Estimate' and 'note' imply a read-only advisory call with no state change, and it enumerates what the result contains, but it says nothing about whether the estimate is a network simulation, whether it needs the sender to hold balance, or how volatile/stale the numbers are.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action and every output, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, so the description correctly lists the returned fields (energy, bandwidth, burn cost, stake-or-burn note), which is its main contribution. However, 'stake-or-burn note' is opaque and there is no guidance on interpretation or the conditions under which the estimate is valid, leaving a moderate gap for a 4-parameter advisory 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 75%: 'to', 'from', and 'amount' (with its default) are documented in the schema. The description's 'TRX or USDT' adds meaning to the undocumented 'token' enum values, but contributes nothing beyond that. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does most of the work.

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?

Specific verb ('Estimate') plus the exact outputs (energy, bandwidth, burn cost, stake-or-burn note) and the resource scope (TRX or USDT transfer). It is clearly distinguishable from quay_address_check and quay_payment_verifier, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'for a TRX or USDT transfer' implies the pre-transfer context in which an agent would call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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