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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, but the single word 'unsigned' does disclose an important non-obvious behavioral trait: this only constructs a transaction and does not sign or broadcast it. Beyond that it says nothing about approvals, simulate behavior, auth needs, or failure modes, which is a notable gap for a transaction-building tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain the lifecycle of the built transaction (sign, submit) and any preconditions. The fully documented params cover inputs, but the post-build workflow and safety context are left unstated.

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 'from', 'amount', and 'simulate' all documented inline (including the simulate default of true). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Build) plus the exact resource and direction (wstLINK to stLINK unwrap transaction), so an agent can distinguish it from the reverse-direction sibling sdl_build_wrap_stlink without opening the schema. It stops short of naming siblings or contrasting with them explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the result must be signed and submitted separately), and no mention of the alternative wrap tool. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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