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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it specifies the HTTP method (GET), notes the data is 'live,' and restates the read-only nature. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but given the strong annotation coverage this is sufficient.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The long enumeration of data types adds clarity but is somewhat verbose. The inline documentation link is helpful but could be a footnote. Overall, each part contributes to usability, though slightly more concise would be ideal.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered. The description appropriately covers purpose, usage routing, read-only safety, and includes a link to full documentation. For a tool with only two parameters and clear annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both path and query with examples. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the path format (via schema) and points to get-endpoint for checking parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: runs a read-only GET request against a documented /v4 path on the Vybe Solana API, and enumerates the types of data returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning list-endpoints, search-endpoints, and get-endpoint for finding paths, and by explicitly stating it cannot create, modify, or delete anything, which separates it from build-vybe-transaction and pay-with-x402.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for related tools: 'Use list-endpoints or search-endpoints to find a path and get-endpoint to check its parameters first.' It also provides a when-not-to-use signal by stating the tool cannot create, modify, or delete anything, implying write operations belong elsewhere. This is direct, actionable routing.

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