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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantive behavioral content: that the guide surfaces live values (difficulty, price, cooldown, chip discount) and includes the exact contract call. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or response format, which is a modest gap for a documentation-fetch tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the purpose and then enumerates the guide's contents. It is information-dense rather than padded, though the long comma-separated list makes it slightly dense to parse.

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 output schema, no parameters, and no annotations, the description fully compensates by enumerating what the guide returns and cross-referencing the find_nonce tool an agent needs next. Nothing essential to calling or using this tool 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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 resource (a step-by-step mining guide for a Spirit Card) and enumerates exactly what the guide contains: the proof-of-work rule, live difficulty/price/cooldown/chip discount, miner locations, contract call, and nonce generation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_nonce, verify_nonce, and get_pool.

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 implies the usage context (read this before attempting to mine) and explicitly routes to the sibling tool find_nonce for obtaining a valid nonce. It does not state exclusions or alternative guides, but the context is clear enough that an agent knows when to reach for it.

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