assetfare_observe_destination

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it 'Makes a network request and advances session state, but never signs or submits.' This clarifies the side-effect profile even though readOnlyHint is false, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage conditions and alternative, and behavioral boundary. The most important routing constraint is 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?

For a four-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential selection and invocation context: workflow version, ordering requirement, side effects, and non-actions. There is no meaningful gap for an agent deciding to call it.

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%, with each of the four parameters already well documented in the schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 immediately states a specific action — 'Verify an already-submitted destination UserOperation receipt' — and adds the legacy v1 workflow context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the v2 alternative explicitly, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 caller independently submits assetfare_prepare_destination_action'. It also names the alternative for v2 workflows, assetfare_v2_session_observe_output, making the routing decision unambiguous.

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