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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about the returned data (flags, mite, timing) and clarifies that receipts are not verdicts. However, it doesn't disclose any additional side effects, rate limits, or output format beyond what annotations imply. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact, with the core purpose front-loaded ('Receipts: flags...'). It uses domain jargon (runs, drains, mite) that may require prior knowledge but is efficient. Each sentence contributes to clarifying purpose, usage, and differentiation. Slightly longer than necessary but well-structured.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it returns, the optional parameter effect, and a pointer to check_token for verdicts. It does not elaborate on the meaning of 'mite' or 'runs/drains/dead', but these are likely domain-specific terms. Overall, it provides sufficient information for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema describes the 'address' parameter as an optional token contract. The description adds crucial semantics: providing the token returns that token's receipts and waiting flags, while omitting it returns the latest across the chain. This meaningfully extends the schema's simple description, helping the agent understand the parameter's impact.

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 states a specific action (flags receipts that proved right) and identifies the resource (chain) and the optional token scope. It explicitly differentiates itself from check_token by clarifying that receipts are historical records, not current verdicts. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to see historical correct calls) and explicitly points to check_token for current verdicts, giving a conditional alternative. It also explains the optional token behavior (provide for specific token, omit for latest across chain). While it doesn't enumerate all alternatives, the key distinction is covered.

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