distribute_interest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly discloses the non-executing nature: it 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing,' preventing the misconception that funds move immediately. It also names the artifact format, though it doesn't cover every edge behavior or auth requirement.

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 entire definition is one focused sentence that front-loads the action and appends the critical output/output-mode qualifier. No filler or redundant restatement; every element earns its place.

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?

For a 3-parameter transaction-builder with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose, source, destination, and return artifact, which is enough to infer the basic call. However, it omits when to prefer this over the similar collect_interest sibling and does not fully specify the response shape beyond 'CBOR hex'.

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 three parameters. The description adds only loose context—'collector UTxOs' maps to the hash/index arrays and the admin collector is the recipient—without introducing meaningful new syntax or relationships beyond the schema's 'same order' note.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Distribute'), source ('collector UTxOs'), destination ('admin interest collector'), and key artifact ('unsigned transaction (CBOR hex)'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling collect_interest, but the core action and resource are unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied: call this when accumulated interest in non-admin collector UTxOs should be moved to the admin collector and the caller needs an unsigned transaction. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_collector_utxos or collect_interest.

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