veya_writes_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: writes are signed and sent by the caller's own wallet, not the host relayer. That is useful architectural context, but it says nothing about what the call returns, whether it is read-only, or any auth/rate-limit considerations.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with the operative fact front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for an informational tool, though the terse construction is the entire description.

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 zero-param informational tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the core content but does not describe the shape of the response or how an agent should act on it. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level information is needed.

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 subject (how on-chain writes work) and asserts the key fact that the caller's own wallet sends writes rather than the host relayer. However, it reads as a documentation/reference tool despite the 'status' name, and it does not distinguish itself from the many write-related siblings (veya_anchor_proof, veya_register_pq_onchain, veya_store_commitment). The purpose is understandable but not sharply differentiated.

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?

There is no indication of when an agent should call this tool, what question it answers that other tools don't, or any conditions/exclusions. No alternatives are named despite a crowded sibling set covering on-chain writes.

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