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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: that it reads via eth_call, only processes plain JSON rules, and explicitly states that encrypted rules are not decrypted. This goes beyond annotations and provides clear behavioral boundaries.

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: the first states the core purpose and constraint, the second adds technical detail. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the what (resolve payload), when (WAITING target), and a limitation (no encrypted rules). However, it does not cover error conditions or what happens if the target is not WAITING. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate given the baseline of 3.

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 the tool resolves payload fields for a WAITING wake-up target, naming specific contract calls (XRC-729.getOSTC, XRC-137.getRule) via eth_call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_xrc137_rule_json' or 'resolve_xrc729_process_graph' by specifying the context (WAITING target) and action (resolving payload fields).

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 explicitly restricts usage to 'one currently WAITING wake-up target' and warns that encrypted rules are not decrypted server-side. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide explicit alternatives from the sibling list, leaving some guidance implied.

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