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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already provided by annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that the tool is public and requires no auth, and by explaining the measurement methodology: 'sampled follower counts with the timestamp they were read at, never a claim' and 'honest zeros are part of the pitch.' This gives the agent behavioral insight beyond the structured annotations, without contradicting them.

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 front-loads the main idea and layers purpose, usage, and auth in a logical order. However, it uses heavy stylistic formatting—caps, em-dashes, and jargon like 'the MCP door' and 'the Attention Board's seats and worth'—that makes it longer and more cryptic than necessary. Each sentence earns its place, but the wording is not efficiently plain.

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?

Since there is no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It lists the major content categories: follower counts with timestamps, Attention Board data, active agents, carriers, and payouts with transaction signatures. It also communicates the tool's public/no-auth nature. While it does not detail exact response formatting or field names, it is complete enough for an agent to know what information this report provides.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on return contents rather than parameter syntax, since there are no inputs to document. No additional parameter meaning 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 identifies the resource as network metrics ('THE NETWORK, MEASURED, BOTH DIRECTIONS') and enumerates the data it includes: sampled follower counts with timestamps, Attention Board seats and worth, active agents, carriers, and payouts with transaction signatures. It stops short of a plain 'Gets/Returns' verb and uses stylized phrasing, but an agent can infer it produces a network measurement report. It is distinguishable from siblings by its focus on provable, timestamped network data.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Read this before quoting any number about Rokha's size,' which tells the agent when this report is the authoritative source. It also states 'Public, no auth,' clarifying that authentication is unnecessary. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer adnet_report or adnet_stats), so it lacks the explicit routing seen in higher-scoring examples.

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