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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by stating the tool is deterministic, costs no tokens, uses no LLM, and performs no network calls, reading only what the caller passes. It does not detail error behavior or output structure, but the core safety and privacy traits are explicit.

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 core question, then gives input requirements, an illustrative example, and behavioral guarantees. It is slightly verbose with the motivational Solana/Base example, but each sentence contributes either usage guidance or transparency information, so no sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect back. It says 'deterministic routing advice with the reason,' which conveys the high-level return value but does not describe the structure, the possible action values, or how the reason is formatted. Inputs are well covered, but the output contract is under-specified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between parameters: pass the error plus 'current_chain, available_chains, and/or current_provider, available_providers'. The 'and/or' clarifies that chain topology and provider topology are independent optional inputs, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 names a specific decision task ('RETRY', 'SWITCH', 'FALL BACK', or 'STOP') and clearly states the tool produces deterministic routing advice with a reason. It also distinguishes itself from nearby diagnostic siblings by emphasizing it is free, LLM-free, and network-free, making its niche unmistakable.

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 tells the agent when to use it: after an error, pass the error plus the configured topology, and receive routing advice. It gives a concrete motivating example ('flaky Solana RPC... switch to Base') but does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for this situation.

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