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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context: rate limits ('FREE: 5/day per IP'), return format with hallucination_risk levels, and batch mode. It also explains the tool's lifecycle role ('pre-flight'). No contradiction with annotations; the description provides additional transparency beyond the annotation.

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 efficient and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent return-format and batch-mode details are necessary given the lack of an output schema. No filler or redundant phrasing; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's modest complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description provides a complete picture: purpose, usage timing, return structure, batch limits, and rate limits. It also clarifies the tool's role in preventing irreversible on-chain losses, making it well-rounded.

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%, with each parameter (chain, claim, claims) already described and an example provided for 'claim'. The tool description adds batch-mode context but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Pre-flight reality check for on-chain AI agents' that 'Verifies token addresses, prices, chain IDs, and contract existence.' This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like x711_price_feed or x711_tx_simulate, and the phrase 'Catches hallucinated addresses' makes its niche explicit.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Always run before any on-chain tx.' It also frames the tool for 'on-chain AI agents' to prevent irreversible losses. While it doesn't mention when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.

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