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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses live node fee estimates, round-up to whole sats, selection of the fastest estimate fitting each cap, the no-confirmation-guarantee caveat, and that nothing is signed or broadcast. It also states cost per call (20 sats / US$0.01 USDC), which annotations do not cover. It does not address the l402/pay_with payment handshake or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with what it does, then the plan format and an inline example, then caveats and price. Sentences are short and mostly earn their place; the fee-cap example slightly duplicates the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers inputs, estimation behavior, caveats, and pricing. The only gap is the payment flow around l402/pay_with, though those parameters are described in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents plan, l402, and pay_with. The description repeats the plan example that is also in the schema and adds one fact the schema lacks (the 1-to-25 size limit). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 gives a specific operation on a specific resource: analyze 1-25 transaction sizes against a per-transaction fee cap using live node estimates. That is clearly distinguishable from the sibling risk/screening/report tools. The generic tool name 'analyze' is only rescued by the title and the description, so it falls just short of 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?

Usage is implied by the input contract (a fee cap plus transaction sizes) and the 'no transaction is signed or broadcast' line hints at the planning use case. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the siblings.

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