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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral traits such as auth requirements or side effects; it only elaborates on the return payload. This is useful context but not additional behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb 'Return' and immediately enumerates the three output components. No filler or repeated annotation content.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description succinctly enumerates all three output components, giving an agent a clear picture of the response. Minor ambiguity remains about units or types (e.g., whether the success fee is a percentage or a numeric amount), but for a simple no-arg read tool this is adequate.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The description's mention of the return fields does not conflict with the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resource: the disclosed success fee, atomic on-chain referral split, and fee-collection configuration status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_methodology or get_supported_chains, which target different data. It is not a tautology of the title.

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 does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. However, the content itself implies the use case: queries about Recover SOL Rent pricing details. Without explicit exclusions or alternatives, it sits at the implied-usage level.

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