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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important behavioral trait that the caller's own wallet pays (payerPrivateKey, gas). It does not state irreversibility of the on-chain anchor, what permissions are required, or what is returned, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the wallet/credential model and the relayer exclusion front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter on-chain write with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the credential model but omits gas/irreversibility implications, environmentId semantics, and any sense of the result. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 50%, with apiKey/sessionToken/payerPrivateKey documented but label, content, and environmentId bare. The description reinforces which two credentials matter (apiKey + payerPrivateKey), which adds some meaning, but it does not explain label/content/environmentId beyond the schema.

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 ('Anchor') and resource ('a content proof on Veya.sol') and clarifies the credential path (your wallet vs. the hosted relayer), which distinguishes it from sibling anchoring tools like veya_anchor_pq_attestation. It does not name a specific sibling, so differentiation requires the reader to infer.

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?

'Does not use the hosted relayer' implies the selection condition (self-custodied anchoring vs. a relayer-backed path), but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage must be inferred from the credential mention.

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