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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the external proof-fetching behavior when the proof is omitted, which is valuable, but it does not state whether calldata building is side-effect-free (no transaction submission), what happens if the fetch fails, or any prerequisites. Partial disclosure only.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first establishes the core purpose, the second adds a key behavioral detail. The 'Advanced' prefix is minimal and does not detract from readability.

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 an advanced tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits that only calldata is built (not submitted), provides no return-value format, and no failure modes or prerequisites. While schema covers parameters, the behavioral and usage context remains incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the proof fallback source (forgetreasury.com/rewards), which is more concrete than the schema's 'auto-fetched from manifest'. This clarifies behavior around optional parameters and raises it above baseline.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Build calldata') and a distinct resource ('claim weekly $FORGE rewards'), which clearly separates it from siblings like deposit, withdraw, and get_forge_rewards. The 'Advanced' tag and proof-fetch note add useful context without ambiguity.

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 action verb implies the tool is for claiming rewards, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or routing to sibling tools. It does not clarify that get_forge_rewards is for checking rewards rather than claiming.

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