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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'This tool does not spend money' and the requirement to obtain payment authorization before using a wallet or payment-capable HTTP client. This clarifies that the tool only returns instructions and cannot initiate financial actions, which is valuable for an agent.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a safety caveat. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter, read-only instruction tool, the description is largely complete: it states what the instructions are about, that no money is spent, and provides a necessary authorization reminder. It does not describe the exact structure of the returned instructions, but no output schema exists and the purpose is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters and the schema covers that fully, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for a parameterless tool is high, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related noise.

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 verb ('Get instructions'), a specific resource ('optional one-time 10 USDC unlock on Base'), and distinguishes the tool as informational rather than transactional. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like speedbot_send or speedbot_join without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs instructions for the 10 USDC unlock. It also provides an explicit safety guideline to obtain owner authorization before using a wallet or payment-capable client. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter info tool.

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