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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the PCC_GATEWAY_PRIVATE_KEY prerequisite and the fact that a signer address is returned, which tells the agent what configuration state is required.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite and return info.

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?

For a no-arg, no-output-schema read tool whose annotations already declare safety, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and return shape. Only the explicit relationship to sibling status tools is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter surface to document and correctly confines itself to prerequisites and return content.

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 check (whether on-chain write operations are enabled) plus the return payload (write status and signer address). An agent can distinguish it from the many get_* status siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 only implied: the tool queries write-readiness, so an agent would call it before attempting a write. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative such as setup_status.

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