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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), the description discloses things the annotations cannot: the data is sampled on-chain rather than quoted, refreshed on a 15-minute cadence with the age included in the response, and the call is paid (0.005 USDC via x402 across five chains). Cost and staleness are precisely the traits an agent needs before spending a metered call.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the data scope, then freshness, then price — the right order for an agent deciding whether to call. It is slightly overstuffed at the tail, where the five-chain payment list could be a single clause, but nothing is truly 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers source, sampling method, freshness, and cost. The only gap is what happens on payment failure or when no recent tips exist, which an agent would want to know for a metered endpoint.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully described.

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 concrete resource (Jito tip percentiles p25–p99 in SOL, sampled from the newest transfers into Jito's tip accounts and from landed bundles) rather than restating the title. An agent can tell exactly what data comes back. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling (get_priority_fees) to draw the boundary between generic priority fees and Jito-specific tips.

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?

Usage is only implied through the mention of a 'landing recommendation', which points at setting tips for bundle submission, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With ~90 siblings and get_priority_fees sitting right next to it in the list, an explicit routing statement is the main missing piece.

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