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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: output format (base64, versioned), what the instructions do and that nothing else leaves the wallet, that tokens are only burned for accounts in `burn`, that the owner signs unchanged, that the wallet is the fee payer, and that compute budget instructions may be injected. The destructiveHint=false annotation is consistent because this tool only emits unsigned transactions — the on-chain destruction happens only after signing and submit_reclaim, and the description makes that two-step separation explicit.

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?

Front-loads the core action and output format, then layers the signing/submission constraints. Four dense sentences where each carries a distinct constraint (scope, burn gate, signing, deadline), though it runs slightly long as a single block.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (unsigned base64 versioned transactions) and the full handoff contract, including the 60-second blockhash deadline and the do-not-send warning. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and safely is missing.

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 documents all five parameters including `ref`, `burn`, `accounts` and `burnMaxUsd` with their caps and sources. The description only reinforces the `burn` parameter ("Tokens are only burned for accounts listed in `burn`"), which is useful confirmation but adds little syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource with precise scope: "builds the reclaim as unsigned, simulated Solana transactions (base64, versioned)." It also enumerates the exact instructions produced (withdraw excess rent, close empty accounts, service fee last), which distinguishes it cleanly from submit_reclaim without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit downstream routing ("passes them to submit_reclaim within about 60 seconds, before the blockhash expires") and an explicit exclusion ("Do not send them yourself"). The 60-second blockhash window is a concrete usage constraint that tells the agent when the output is still valid.

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