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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by listing the verdict categories and stating the data comes from real on-chain activity, though it does not explain how verdicts are computed or any limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verdict categories and purpose, followed by the usage guidance and alternative. Every sentence adds distinct value with no waste.

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 an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to supply purpose and routing, which it does well. The main gaps are the undocumented limit parameter and the unaddressed sibling agent_liveness.

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?

There is one optional parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot determine what limit controls (e.g., number of activity records) from either source.

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 tool returns a liveness verdict (ALIVE/DORMANT/STALE/DEAD/UNKNOWN) based on real on-chain activity, distinguishing it from get_agent_sla. However, it does not address the similarly named sibling agent_liveness, leaving potential ambiguity about which tool to use.

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?

It explicitly says to use this before depending on an agent and redirects endpoint uptime/latency queries to get_agent_sla. This gives a clear when-to-use and an alternative for a different concern.

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