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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Peg check' is vague: it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., price, deviation percentage), whether it reads live on-chain data, or how it handles invalid symbols or missing parameters. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose. Apart from minor redundancy ('Base' and 'Base L2'), every word contributes value and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum state what the peg check returns and clarify the role of contract_address. It does not, making the tool under-specified for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 50% (only 'symbol' has a description). The tool description repeats the allowed symbols but adds little context about 'USDbC' vs 'USDBC' and completely ignores 'contract_address', whose purpose remains unexplained. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 performs a 'peg check' for stablecoins (USDC, USDbC, DAI) on Base L2. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like base_contract_verify, base_defi_yields, and base_rwa.

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 implies this tool should be used when checking whether stablecoins on Base L2 maintain their peg, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. Context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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