ICM/Teleporter integration recipe

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and repeatability profile. The description adds that the tool returns structured recipe content (addresses, steps, skeleton, commands), which is output context beyond the annotations but not a distinct behavioral trait. It does not contradict the 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 a single sentence that efficiently packs the deliverable into a list of concrete items. It is front-loaded with 'Return' and enumerates key outputs without verbose qualifiers, making it concise and scannable.

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?

The description covers what is returned but omits how parameters alter the recipe and when to use the tool. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional params, no output schema) and weak schema coverage, more contextual guidance would be valuable, but the core output is specified, so it is not entirely deficient.

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 only 33% (source has a description; destination and payload_kind have none). The description does not explain any parameters, nor does it compensate for the low coverage by clarifying how source/destination or payload_kind affect the recipe. An agent would have to rely on defaults and enums without additional semantic context.

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 clearly states the tool returns addresses, lookup steps, Solidity skeleton, and relayer commands for ICM messaging between two Avalanche chains. It specifies a concrete verb ('Return') and a precise resource (ICM/Teleporter integration recipe), which differentiates it from many sibling tools focused on queries or docs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with potentially overlapping tools like avax_get_guide or avax_search_docs, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions such as 'use this when building ICM integrations' or 'for general guides, see avax_get_guide'. The intent is only implied by the tool's name and content, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without direct support.

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