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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call is read-only ('no chain call'), costs $0.003, and requires a two-step payment process (call once for terms, sign, call again with payment). This is significant behavioral transparency, though it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the payment mechanism. It's concise but includes necessary details like pricing and the two-step call process. No redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (payment flow, two-step invocation), the description covers the essential usage. It explains what the tool does, how to pay, and clarifies it's a capability check. It lacks output format details, but no output schema exists, so the agent may need to infer from context. Overall, adequate.

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 both parameters are already described. The description adds the payment flow context but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 and resource: it reads permission bits from a Uniswap v4 hook address on Arc, clarifying it determines allowed actions (runs on swaps, rewrites amounts). It distinguishes itself by noting it's a capability check, not a verdict, which differentiates from similar arc_* tools like arc_verdict.

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?

It provides context on when to use it (checking hook permissions without a chain call) and explains the payment flow, but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use it. Siblings like arc_contract_check might overlap, but no explicit routing is given.

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