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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: amounts are exact decimal strings, unreadable values are null with a degraded code, and values are never returned as zero. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but that is not required given the annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds key data-quality details in two efficient follow-up sentences. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries a larger burden and does describe the returned supply dimensions plus null/degraded handling and exact decimal formatting. It stops short of fully explaining the response structure or the meaning of degraded codes, but it is substantially complete for a zero-parameter read 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema has no properties and no parameter descriptions are needed, making the baseline 4 appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and verb: retrieving ledger-indexed ASTEROID supply, with a precise list of included metrics. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as get_token_stats or get_escrow_stats, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 explains what data is returned but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the sibling tools that might cover overlapping supply or token statistics.

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