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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: output is aggregate-only, non-attributable, no handle can be identified, and it requires no authentication. This goes well beyond what annotations and the empty schema provide.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, use cases, return contents, scope limitation, and access requirements are packed into a compact description. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundant elaboration.

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 zero-parameter, read-only aggregate tool, the description fully covers why an agent would call it, what it returns, its strict non-attribution guarantee, and its authentication cost. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return dimensions sufficiently for correct use.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is little for the description to add. It explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters,' which is useful reinforcement even though the schema already makes this clear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get aggregate ~alter network figures') and enumerates exact return fields (total identities, verified profiles, query volume, active agent count). It further distinguishes itself by emphasizing whole-network totals only, with nothing attributable to any member, which separates it from member-specific siblings like alter_whoami and alter_resolve_handle.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'check the field is answering before you rely on it, or to show how large it is.' It stops short of naming specific sibling alternatives or stating when not to use it, though the aggregate-only framing implies it is not for member-level queries.

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