authorization_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool computes a digest and does not sign, indicating no side effects. However, it lacks details about error conditions, validity of parameters, or potential dependencies on chain state, which would be needed for full transparency.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a hex string of the digest). Additionally, with 7 parameters undocumented, the description is insufficient for a user to confidently use the tool without external knowledge.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'given authorization' without describing any of the 7 parameters (to, from, nonce, token, value, validAfter, validBefore), leaving their roles unclear.

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 specifies the verb 'Compute' and the resource 'EIP-712 digest for a given authorization', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'verify_authorization_signature' and 'build_transfer_authorization' which handle signing and building respectively.

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 implies usage for preparing a digest for offline signing ('without signing it'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_transfer_authorization' or 'verify_authorization_signature'.

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