Veil Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-mutating read by using 'Check' and enumerates the three things inspected, which is useful. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, whether the owner address must already be registered, or the shape of the response.

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 that leads with the primary resource (local Veil key status) before the secondary relay and optional owner checks. Dense but no wasted 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema, single-optional-param read tool, the description covers what is inspected but leaves the agent without return-value expectations or prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps for a status/diagnostic 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 coverage is 100%, so the single owner parameter is already documented in the schema with its pattern and purpose. The description's mention of owner registration/wallet status merely echoes the schema's description, adding no new format or conditional detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates the resources covered: local Veil key status, relay health, and optional owner registration/wallet status. This differentiates it from siblings like veil_get_balances and veil_deposit_status, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it displaces.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling is named. The phrase 'optional owner registration/wallet status' hints at when to supply owner, but the agent must infer the diagnostic context on its own.

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