assetfare_observe_cctp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating 'Makes a network request but never signs or submits' and 'advance the session record', clarifying the mutation nature and the non-signing/submitting behavior. This is useful supplementary detail, though not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of error handling or side effects).

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly describe return values or error conditions, but given the tool's role (verify and advance session), the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gap is the lack of mention of what happens on verification failure, but this is not critical.

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 all four parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely refers to 'caller-submitted legacy v1 burn' which aligns with burn_signature. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify' and 'advance') with a clear resource ('Circle attestation and the forwarded Base or Arbitrum USDC mint for a caller-submitted legacy v1 burn'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming assetfare_read_session for inspection without advancement and a v2 observe tool for v2 routes, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Use only after the CCTP burn is submitted') and names alternatives with their conditions ('use assetfare_read_session for inspection without advancement and a v2 session observe tool for v2 routes'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus siblings.

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