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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions required inputs (proof and ciphertext) but does not describe side effects, mutability, permissions, or return value. Assumes a 'build' operation is non-destructive, but not explicitly stated.

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?

Description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise with no redundant information, but could be slightly clearer. Efficient use of space.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, description fails to explain what the built transaction does or how it fits into the workflow. Niche concepts like 'PubkeyValidity proof' and 'decryptable-zero' are not explained, leaving agent unsure about when to invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying that pubkeyValidityProof is 'agent-generated' and 96 bytes, and decryptableZeroBalance is 'worker computed' AES ciphertext of 36 bytes, aiding understanding of parameter provenance and format beyond schema constraints.

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?

Description states 'Build the Configure tx' which is a clear verb and resource, but 'Configure tx' is ambiguous without context; it could refer to configuring a confidential token account or something else. It does not distinguish from sibling 'ct_build' tools like deposit or transfer, which have similar names.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios. The description only states what it does without context for selection among siblings.

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