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

Adds useful context beyond annotations: requires Authorization: Bearer <JWT>, returns newest first, and includes status and pool id. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint: false while both the title and the read-only nature of the operation suggest otherwise; the description does not address this discrepancy, leaving ambiguity about side effects.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds scoping, ordering, and auth requirement without any 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-parameter read operation, the description covers what is returned, ordering, fields, and auth. It lacks details about pagination or output limits, but with no output schema and a simple operation, it is nearly 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not add parameter detail where none exists.

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 and resource: 'Your pledges across every pool, newest first, with status and pool id.' It clearly distinguishes 'yours' from other pledge-related siblings and implies scope. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for comparison, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description only states what is returned; it does not tell the agent when to select this tool over siblings like signet_pledge_pool or signet_pledge_outcomes.

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