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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating the data is read from the chain and by explaining the state semantics (pending with estimate, active with epoch, not yet queued). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but efficient: the first sentence covers the resource and output states, the second gives the usage trigger, and the third notes the optional filter. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool lists, where the data comes from, what states mean, when to use it, and how to filter. No critical context is 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?

The schema coverage for parameters is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the optional state parameter. The description adds minor value by indicating the filter is 'by mainnet state', but it does not substantially extend the schema's own description.

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 lists Solana protocol upgrades/feature gates with their state across networks, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on token/program/wallet checks, and clarifies it covers SIMD/feature activation queries.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use it when a user asks whether a SIMD or feature has activated, or what is coming next.' It provides clear context without listing excluded cases or naming alternative tools, but the sibling set makes alternatives easy to rule out.

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