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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the concrete contents of the response, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether stokenet lags mainnet, so there is room left.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most important identifier (Radix network) comes first. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 correctly compensates by listing the return fields, and the one input parameter is fully covered by the schema. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only usage context is absent.

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 single 'network' parameter is fully documented with an enum and default. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries this dimension entirely.

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 names the exact resource (Radix network status) and enumerates the specific data points returned: epoch, total XRD staked, active validator count, average APY, average uptime. This distinguishes it implicitly from granular siblings like get_validator_state or get_xrd_price, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The agent must infer from sibling names alone that this is the network-level aggregate rather than a per-validator view.

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