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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety. The description adds crucial output behavior: the four decision states, up to 3 reasons ordered by severity, the BLOCK threshold, WAIT retry semantics, and the ALLOW caveat. That is rich context beyond structured fields.

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 action and remains dense with useful detail. It could be slightly easier to scan, but every sentence contributes to correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

For a gate tool with no output schema, the description explains the return values, retry conditions, and limitations. Combined with annotations that cover safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 single address parameter is fully described in the schema. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: a single gate call before buying a coin, and it answers a Decision. It explicitly differentiates from check_coin (same read) and check_tx (rules used), so an agent can select it over siblings.

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?

Clear when-to-use: one call before buying on Robinhood Chain. It references check_coin as the underlying read but does not spell out when to skip this gate or use presign_risk_report instead; still, the context is strong.

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