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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive/ closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: `payout` is null while no address is registered and the node is therefore unpaid, plus the `next.action` polling contract. It omits any error or not-found behavior for an unknown node_id.

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 element is factual, but the whole description is one long run-on sentence built from a dense comma list with an embedded parenthetical, which makes it hard to scan. Front-loading the action ("fetch a single node") before the field list would improve it.

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 present, the description need not explain return values, and the behavioral contract (polling loop, unpaid payout semantics) is covered. A mutation-free single-parameter read tool is adequately described; only sibling disambiguation and failure behavior are missing.

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% and the single `node_id` parameter is already fully documented in the schema (format and provenance from rent_supply_nodes or the node kit). The description adds nothing about node_id, so 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 opens with "One of your nodes" and enumerates the concrete state it returns (state, wire, region, ask, capacity, checks, payout), so an agent can infer a single-node detail fetch. It never uses a verb like "get" or "retrieve" and never distinguishes itself from rent_supply_nodes (list), leaving the purpose implied rather than stated.

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 gives explicit operating guidance: "`next` names the one command to run and when; poll this until `next.action` is `none`." That tells the agent both why to call it and when to stop. It does not say when to prefer rent_supply_nodes or other siblings, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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