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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only return of values/hashes, and adds the useful detail that hashes are published in advance. It does not discuss edge cases or response details, but for a read-only lookup the core behavior is disclosed.

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 sentences, no filler. The main result is stated first shit, and parameter semantics follow directly. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema angle and a fairly straightforward read-only tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returnedaine, what the parameters mean, and the 60-second cadence. Lacks an explicit return-format example but does not miss a critical call condition.

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 documents only 'label' as an independent draw; the description adds meaning for both parameters: round selects a past round, and label modifies the derivation ('same seed'). This compensates well for the schema's partial coverage, though nuance like label format or default round behavior is not fully specified.

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 ('Returns'), an exact resource (the 60-second round), and the payload at a high level: the round value and future hashes. It also distinguishes the two params at a semantic level. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Explains what each parameter does ('round returns one past round; label derives a separate value from the same seed'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose the default vs. supplying parameters, and does not mention any competing/alternative tool.

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