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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the storage cost requirement but fails to disclose that deploying may overwrite existing contract code, requires signing privileges, or produces transaction-related 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It delivers the core purpose and one key requirement without unnecessary verbosity.

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 deployment tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the relationship between wasm_path and wasm_base64, whether the contract initialization is part of this step or separate, or what the return value is, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including alternatives like wasm_path and wasm_base64. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: deploying a WASM smart contract to a NEAR account. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on deployment distinguishes it from sibling tools like upgrade_contract and initialize_contract.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional note about storage cost balance is a prerequisite rather than usage direction, and there is no mention of exclusions or scenarios favoring other sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies that the tool does not deploy ('before actually deploying') but does not explicitly state it is read-only or has no side effects. It also doesn't mention any external dependencies or computation specifics, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise while still conveying the core functionality and timing.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (3 alternative params, no output schema). The description effectively communicates that it estimates deployment cost, which is the main purpose. However, it does not mention what the return value looks like (e.g., numeric cost in tokens/currency), which would be useful. Given the low complexity, this is a minor omission, and the description is otherwise complete for guiding selection and invocation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, including noting they are alternatives. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it does not go above the baseline. It does not clarify when to prefer wasm_path over wasm_base64, but the schema's 'Alternative' notes help.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'storage cost for deploying a WASM contract'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deploy_contract and initialize_contract by focusing on cost estimation rather than actual deployment.

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 phrase 'before actually deploying' provides a clear temporal context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling list includes deployment-related tools, making it obvious that this is a pre-deployment step. It could be more explicit by saying 'use this instead of deploy_contract to estimate costs without committing', but the current wording is adequate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a non-destructive check but never explicitly states that it does not modify anything or what exactly 'deployment details' includes. This lack of explicit safety and output context is a significant gap.

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 with the main verb first and no filler. It earns its place by conveying both purpose and scope in minimal words.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what 'deployment details' returns and whether there are any side effects. It does neither, leaving the agent without adequate context for a correct invocation or result interpretation.

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 schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters (e.g., network default or accepted formats), relying entirely on 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 uses a specific verb ('Check if') and identifies the resource (NEAR account), making the action and scope immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling deployment tools by focusing on querying status rather than modifying, which is a distinct purpose.

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 clearly implies a read-only status query, which contrasts with the mutation-focused sibling tools like deploy_contract and upgrade_contract. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that an init method is called; it does not mention that this is a state-changing transaction, that private_key is needed for signing, potential side effects like double-initialization errors, or whether it is irreversible. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the schema already lists.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the typical usage context. Every word earns its place, and the key information 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?

Despite good schema coverage, the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too terse to cover important contextual aspects like return values, failure modes (e.g., 'method already initialized'), network defaults, or the difference between 'new' and 'init' methods. As a state-changing blockchain operation, more context is needed for safe autonomous invocation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all 7 parameters, each with detailed descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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 ('Call') and resource ('initialization method on a deployed contract'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like deploy_contract or upgrade_contract. The added context 'Most contracts require this after deployment' reinforces the tool's specific role in the contract lifecycle.

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 phrase 'Most contracts require this after deployment' implies the tool is used post-deployment, which helps orient the agent. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though sibling tool names provide implicit differentiation.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the ownership requirement ('must be owned by the signer') and implies code replacement, but omits details on irreversibility, migration invocation, state persistence, or potential failure modes.

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 no redundant phrasing. The purpose is front-loaded, and the ownership constraint is stated efficiently.

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 complex operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It lacks guidance on when to use wasm_path versus wasm_base64, how migration methods are invoked, and what outcome the agent should expect after calling the tool.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description only loosely references WASM code and ownership, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Upgrade an existing contract') and its resource ('with new WASM code'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_contract targeting new contracts. The phrase 'existing contract' reinforces the intended use case.

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 clear context that this tool is for existing contracts and includes an ownership prerequisite, but it does not explicitly contrast with deploy_contract or mention when migration arguments are relevant. No direct exclusions or alternative names are provided.

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