dero_decode_proof_string

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses important behaviors: whitespace trimming, case consistency requirements, conditional presence of `value_interpretation`, silent attachment of `context_note`/`related_docs` for flagged artifacts, and `INVALID_BECH32` error codes. It also clarifies that a decode result is a display-layer fact, not a consensus statement. No contradiction with 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 long but well-structured into labeled sections: purpose, when to call, critical input requirements, output shape, and documentation-citation guidance. It front-loads the core purpose before the detailed output contract. Each section earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It provides a detailed output contract, conditional fields, error behavior, and contextual caveats. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret the result correctly without further documentation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful input semantics beyond the schema: the full string must include HRP and separator, the example format is reinforced, and BIP-0173 case consistency is explicitly required. This is genuinely useful for constructing valid calls.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Decode any DERO bech32 string... into its constituent parts'. It enumerates the supported HRPs and distinguishes the special `deroproof…` case where the public key is a derived blinder point, not a wallet pubkey. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, none of which are decoders.

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?

An explicit 'When to call' section states the triggering user request (pasting a `deroproof…` / integrated-address string to learn what it encodes). It also gives an explicit alternative to avoid: chaining bech32 decoders + CBOR libraries yourself. This is actionable guidance for tool selection.

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