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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly confirms read-only, so the safety profile is well covered. It usefully adds that results are per-day with totals included, but omits unit/currency of rewards, timezone or cutoff for a 'day', and whether empty days appear, which would matter for correct interpretation.

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 compact sentences that front-load the scope and enumerate the returned fields, with no wasted words. The trailing 'Read-only' is slightly redundant against the annotations but harmless.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level. It falls short on return shape detail (units, day boundaries, whether zero-reward days are included) that an agent would need to interpret results 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%: both address (rv1… Olympia validator address) and year (2021–2023) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'in one year' and 'per day' reinforce the year parameter and output granularity but add no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource (an Olympia validator's rewards) and its scope (one year, broken down per day, covering owner fee, delegator earnings, and total stake). It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like olympia_get_validator_delegators or olympia_get_account_rewards, so the agent must infer the distinction from the field list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus olympia_get_validator, olympia_get_validator_delegators, or olympia_get_account_rewards, nor any stated prerequisites such as whether the address must be an Olympia-era validator. The agent gets context from the name and description but no routing logic.

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