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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says it credits a balance, but does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, idempotent, what happens on duplicate signatures, fee impacts, or failure/rejection behavior. For a financial credit operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two tight sentences. First sentence states the action and precondition; second sentence links the required signature to its origin tool. No filler.

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 financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not cover idempotency, reversibility, failure modes, which wallet is debited/credited, or what the result looks like. An agent cannot predict side effects or handle errors well.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies txSignature ('signature of the transaction from graviton_deposit_build'), but does not explicitly explain 'wallet' or 'amount' beyond their names, and doesn't specify units, format, or constraints. Partial compensation at best.

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 has a specific verb ('Credit') and resource ('Graviton balance') and identifies the required input ('signature of the transaction you broadcast from graviton_deposit_build'). It distinguishes itself as the post-broadcast credit step relative to the sibling tool, though it could more clearly state it is the final step in a two-phase flow.

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?

States the prerequisite clearly: the deposit must be a confirmed APEX deposit and the signature must come from a transaction broadcast via graviton_deposit_build. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it, but the workflow context is strong enough to guide selection.

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