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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a balance, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens when the agent has no claimable rewards. The reference to 'weekly emissions distributor' adds source context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding. The '[Advanced]' prefix is a minor stylistic addition that does not waste space. Efficiency is ideal.

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 tool with only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context about the return value (does it return a number? a formatted string?), whether it includes pending rewards, or any prerequisites. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only call, which is important given the mutation siblings present. Thus it is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for agentAddress ('Agent wallet address'). The main description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, but since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra nuance like format or expectations is conveyed.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'claimable $FORGE reward balance', and the source 'weekly emissions distributor'. It differentiates from siblings like get_balance (likely general balance) and claim_forge (action) by specifying 'claimable' and the distributor context. An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose and how it differs from similar tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like claim_forge or get_balance. It neither states conditions for selection nor mentions exclusions. The '[Advanced]' prefix hints at intended audience but gives no operational context. An agent would have to infer usage from the sibling names and the tool name alone.

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