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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the concrete return payload, the possible congestion levels, and the per-call cost of $0.0005 USDC, which is an unusual and genuinely useful economic constraint for an agent to know. It stops short of stating data freshness, caching, or whether payment/auth must be set up beforehand.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: identity, return payload, cost. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values – and it does, naming fee percentiles, congestion levels, and the recommendation. Combined with the cost disclosure and zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument 'just call it' shape rather than suggesting configuration exists.

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 resource (Solana network congestion) and enumerates what is returned: fee percentiles, a congestion level with its enum values, and a recommendation. It is clearly distinct in domain from most siblings, but never names the close alternatives l2_gas_intelligence or priority_fee, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied – an agent can infer 'call this when you need current Solana fee/congestion data' from the description. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to the related priority_fee or l2_gas_intelligence tools that cover adjacent ground.

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