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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces and extends this with operational detail: no gas cost, balances read rather than logs, spending-rights disclosure, sell-back and round-trip loss analysis, router/contract agnosticism, and the meaning of an 'unknown' verdict. It also adds the important caveat that an 'unknown' verdict is not a pass.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core action, then covers safety, outputs, edge cases, and the critical warning. The structure flows naturally from what it does to what it returns to how to interpret the result.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return shape (JSON with verdict code, level, text) and the meaning of 'unknown'. It covers what the simulation reveals, what it cannot determine, and what not to do with the result, making it complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds general context around what the simulation reports, but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as additional detail on 'fund' or 'calls'.

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: it runs a transaction in a simulation before signing, with explicit scope ('from your own wallet as it stands right now'). It clearly differentiates itself from real execution by saying nothing is sent and nothing costs gas, which distinguishes it from signing or broadcast tools.

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 establishes clear context: this is for a transaction you are about to sign, and it explicitly warns the result is not a pass and should not be used to buy. It does not name alternative sibling tools or give explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the pre-signing context is clear.

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