decode_amount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Offline' and lists input formats, but does not disclose error behavior, performance characteristics, or limitations. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the verb 'Decode' and then specifying input formats. Every sentence contributes meaning without repetition or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple input formats), single required parameter, and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential input-output mapping. It could mention typical use cases or error handling, but is largely complete for agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by specifying byte sizes (8-byte native, 48-byte issued) and the structure of the issued amount object {currency,issuer,value}, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'drops string, STAmount hex, or amount object'.

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's function: decoding amounts from native drops, serialized hex, or issued amount objects into normalized values. It specifies the resource (amount) and action (decode), and differentiates itself from sibling tools by its specific input types.

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 offline decoding of amounts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No comparisons to sibling decode tools are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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