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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: 'Public, no auth' tells the agent no credentials are needed, and 'each read from its own source' signals per-account external reads. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 dense with useful domain rules but is written entirely in uppercase with heavy jargon and a stream-of-consciousness structure. The core invocation guidance is front-loaded, yet the SPONSOR CARRY/COPIED/RULE ZERO sections add conceptual detail that could be more briefly organized for agent consumption.

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 simple one-optional-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation modes, auth requirements, and what kind of information the tool returns. It does not specify the exact return format, but that is less critical given the explanatory nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema.

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 has one optional string parameter 'who' with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It does: 'With who (a Rokha or X handle) = that account's live boosts' clearly defines the parameter's format, optionality, and effect. It does not fully define 'Rokha' or specify accepted handle syntax, but it compensates well for the schema gap.

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 identifies the tool's resource as boosts/multipliers and distinguishes the bare full-menu mode from the per-account mode, so an agent can tell what it operates on. It lacks an explicit verb like 'explain' or 'list' in the description itself, relying on the name/title, and does not position itself against siblings such as seeds_explain.

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 invocation guidance: calling with no argument returns the full multiplier menu, while passing 'who' returns a specific account's live boosts read from their own sources. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but the within-tool usage modes are concrete and actionable.

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