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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (a non-destructive pre-flight check that reports availability for registration) but does not explain the return shape or error behavior beyond the availability notion.

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 with no waste, and the purpose (pre-flight check) is front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does partially compensate by describing the two pieces of returned information. However, jargon like 'memoless transactions' and 'registration' is left undefined, leaving an agent without full grounding for a tool with no output 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 documents both 'asset' and 'amount' fully. The description references 'the amount' but adds no format or syntactic detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 and resource: a 'pre-flight check' that returns 'what reference would be extracted from the amount and whether it's available for registration.' This is clearer than a generic 'check', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings get_reference_memo / get_reference_memo_by_hash.

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?

'Pre-flight check for memoless transactions' implies when to use it (before performing a memoless transaction), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or naming of alternatives such as get_reference_memo. Usage must be inferred from the phrase 'pre-flight.'

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