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

While annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description goes far beyond by detailing the verification mechanism: reconciliation across 2-3 providers, per-RPC values, block pinning, consensus verdict, and max deviation bps. It also warns about potential stale data from a single RPC. This adds rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 concise: two sentences plus a parenthetical list of operations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and key differentiator (multi-chain reconciliation). Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description compensates well by explaining output structure (per-RPC values, consensus verdict, max deviation). It covers the verification logic, supported operations, and chain options. This is complete for a read-only tool with good annotations.

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% with all parameters described. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'required for tx'). It frames parameters in the context of verification but does not enhance their semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it is a multi-chain onchain read that reconciles across 2-3 independent RPC providers. It lists the specific operations it handles (block_number, gas_price, balance, tx, erc20_balance, erc20_supply), making it distinct from other tools. The verb 'read' plus resource 'verified on-chain data' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool: for verified onchain reads that detect stale/different answers from a lone RPC. It implies its value for cross-provider consensus. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, such as simpler reads without verification. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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