assetfare_observe_cctp

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool makes a network request, never signs or submits, and advances the session record only after verification. This meaningfully clarifies the mutation semantics implied by readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by usage conditions and a safety-relevant behavioral note. Every clause 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 state-advancing tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, alternatives, and side effects well. It does not describe return values or failure behavior, but the schema plus annotations cover invocation details sufficiently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description adds contextual framing like 'caller-submitted' and 'legacy v1,' but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: verifying Circle attestation and forwarded USDC mints, then advancing the session record. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with assetfare_read_session and the v2 observe tool.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: use only after the CCTP burn is submitted. It also names the correct alternative for inspection without advancement and for v2 routes, giving the agent concrete routing guidance.

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