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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: handles Error(string), Panic(uint256), custom errors (requires ABI), and silent reverts. It also notes no RPC call, reinforcing the read-only nature. No contradictions.

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 three concise sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then details supported error types, operational characteristics, and input source—all essential 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?

Given no output schema, the description could have explained the return format, but it thoroughly covers input requirements, error types handled, and behavior (pure computation). The key usage scenarios are well addressed, though output details are implied rather than explicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the source of revert_data (transaction receipt or eth_call error) and reiterating the ABI requirement for custom errors, which complements the schema fields.

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: decoding raw EVM revert data on Mezo. It specifies the resource (revert data from failed transactions/mezo_call) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the Mezo network explicitly.

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?

Provides clear usage context by explaining it's pure computation (no RPC) and instructing to pass hex data from transaction receipts or eth_call errors. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like eth_decode_revert or testnet variants, though naming and 'on Mezo' imply the intended scope.

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