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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description goes far beyond by enumerating the refusal boundary (broadcast/signing, transaction building, admin/dev namespaces, mutating verbs, dot-namespaced wallet families), disclosing TORPC tier negotiation with contract 2 and _meta.tier, the Sui gRPC bridging rule, and that a forwarded read may still return "Method disabled, reason: restricted by blockchain schema" as the authoritative answer.

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?

Front-loaded: the what and the routing advice come first, with the long refusal enumeration pushed after. The mid-paragraph parenthetical is dense, but for a tool with an unbounded method space each refusal category carries distinct information, so the length is largely earned rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies what an agent needs to act: tier semantics and where to read the negotiated value, the refusal-error shape, per-chain-family constraints, and pointers to listChains/describeMethods for the discovery this tool deliberately does not internalize.

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%, so parameters are already documented and baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning for `tier` (negotiated per call, contract 2, inspect _meta.tier) and clarifies the escape-hatch nature of `chain`/`method` via listChains and describeMethods, exceeding what the schema alone conveys.

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?

"Call ANY JSON-RPC method on a supported chain: the escape hatch beyond the routed tools" gives a specific verb plus resource and immediately positions it relative to the sibling suite (getTransaction/getLogs/getBlock, describeMethods, listChains). An agent can tell in one sentence that this is the raw fallback rather than a routed convenience tool.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: "Prefer getTransaction/getLogs/getBlock where they fit," "describeMethods says which are bridged," and "Call listChains for coverage." It also states the negative space in detail (what is refused, on which chain families), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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