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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the action is queued, defaults to marking spam, updates 'existing records,' and 'returns a requestId.' This gives the agent useful expectations about asynchronicity, side effects, and response shape that annotations alone do not convey.

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 a single dense sentence where every clause earns its place: the action, the accounting effect, the update to existing records, the queued nature, the default, and the requestId. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers the remaining essentials: what the tool does, why it is used, how it behaves asynchronously, and what it returns. No critical behavioral or selection context 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 already documents all six parameters, including the isSpam default and reason immutability. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark or unmark a token as spam.' It clarifies the purpose by saying unwanted dust or airdrops are 'excluded from accounting,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage transactions, accounting rules, or sync operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to handle 'unwanted dust or airdrops' by excluding them from accounting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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