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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: finalized 15-minute buckets, exact afet strings, coverage and source cursor, signature status in integrity.signed, and a crucial error semantic that failures mean unavailable evidence rather than zero flow.

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 flow definition, then adds only high-value clarifications: exclusions, return shape, integrity field, error semantics, and defaults. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 does a good job explaining what is returned: exact afet strings, coverage, source cursor, and signature status. It also covers error semantics and defaults. The main remaining gap is lack of explanation for the schema parameter and baseline_days range.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the period values and default (today) and baseline default (7 days), but leaves the schema parameter unexplained and does not mention the baseline_days 1-30 range. This is partially compensating but incomplete.

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 scope: observed native Fetch staking flow on fetchhub-4 for today/yesterday UTC. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from total staked balance, anomaly assessment, and security verdicts, so an agent can tell what it is and is not.

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 temporal usage boundaries (today or yesterday UTC) and explicit exclusions (not total staked balance, anomaly assessment, or security verdict). It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the exclusions and defaults provide sufficient usage context.

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