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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what state data is returned (rounds, index) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like freshness or rate limits. With annotations handling safety, the description adds some value but not extensive behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the state components. It is concise and structured without fluff, though slightly dense.

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 read-only state getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content by enumerating the key state components. It provides enough detail for an agent to understand the response shape without being overly verbose.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'pool' is fully documented with its default and allowed values. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the public state of a BTC prediction pool, specifying the exact components included (open entry round, locked measuring round, last settled/voided round, live BTC/USD index). It distinguishes the resource and the type of data, separating it from history tools like get_btc_pool_history.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description implies current-state retrieval, but does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling get_btc_pool_history exists but is not referenced.

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