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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by documenting the rate limit (6 calls/minute, max one call every 10s) and the specific role in the deposit-signature workflow. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 only two sentences and every clause earns its place: the core action, the returned metadata, the contextual trigger, and the rate limit. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and has no fluff.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (display name, decimals, EIP-712 version), when to use it, and critical rate-limiting constraints. The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the description names the return fields explicitly.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (token, chain) with examples. The description adds the metadata fields and EIP-3009 context, but does not significantly extend parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 verb ('Get') with a precise resource ('a token's on-chain metadata') and includes concrete metadata fields (display name, decimals, EIP-712 version). It also ties the purpose to a specific use case (building an EIP-3009 deposit signature), making it clearly distinct from sibling get_* tools such as get_balances or get_config.

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 explicitly says this tool is 'Needed when building an EIP-3009 deposit signature's tokenName/tokenVersion fields', giving clear context for when to use it. It does not compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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