Check direct-route custody compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds only the specific route comparison (native-L1) but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as failure modes, side conditions, or what 'compatibility' entails. Since annotations cover the main safety aspects, the score is moderate.

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 immediately states the verb and the core comparison. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

With three parameters and an output schema present, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what 'compatibility' means, how the parameters relate to the custody path, or what the output represents. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value explanation, but the overall description still leaves major ambiguities for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any of the three parameters (bondId, provider, keyControlPreference). No attempt is made to map 'custody path' to keyControlPreference or to clarify the roles of bondId and provider. The agent is left without any guidance on parameter meaning or relationships.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' and clearly names the two objects being compared ('one current custody path' vs 'the selected bond's direct native-L1 route'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_participant_status and compare_staking_paths, though the exact meaning of 'compatibility' is not elaborated.

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 over alternatives, nor does it mention when it should not be used. The context of 'current custody path' is implied but not clarified. No exclusions or cross-references to sibling tools are provided.

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