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

Beyond the safety annotations (readOnlyHint: true), the description provides deep technical behavioral context. It explains *how* the reference is stored and retrieved (encoded in the amount, mapped to a pre-registered memo), which is critical knowledge for an AI agent interacting with blockchain mechanics.

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 definition is extremely concise. The first sentence states the function, and the second sentence immediately backs it up with the critical technical context necessary for the agent to understand the tool's domain, resulting in zero wasted words.

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 simple lookup operation, the description is complete. It defines the expected input criteria (asset/reference) and clearly states what the output represents (the memo), providing all necessary operational context to call the tool correctly.

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?

Since the input schema coverage is 100%, the schema already defines the parameters clearly. The description's primary function is explaining the transaction type and logic (memoless encoding), which provides moderate added semantic value but does not compensate for any schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly defines the resource (the memoless transaction memo). It is highly specialized, immediately distinguishing it from similar tools like get_reference_memo_by_hash by requiring asset and reference number lookup.

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?

While it doesn't provide an explicit 'when/when-not' rule, it provides strong contextual guidance. By describing the mechanism ('Memoless transactions use the amount to encode the reference'), it implies that the tool is only relevant when operating within the memoless transaction framework, guiding the agent toward appropriate usage.

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