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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety burden is lifted. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: it is free, returns aggregate counts only with no per-wallet data, and pins the exact transaction definition that drives the metric.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose in the first line, followed by definitional detail that genuinely matters for interpreting the returned metric. It is fairly long but each clause (transaction definition, privacy boundary, cluster behavior) earns its place; a bit denser than necessary but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return fields (gate_met, active_users, etc.) need not be documented here, yet the description still gives enough context for the agent to understand the metric's meaning. The only real gap is the undocumented caller_id parameter and any rate/pagination notes.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain cluster semantics well (mainnet gate vs devnet observability), but caller_id is never mentioned or explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 read operation ('one machine-checkable readiness read') with a precise resource (ILO adoption gate) and defines the metric precisely: 1,000 active users, active = 5 executed transactions in a rolling 7-day window. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_ilo_details and claim_ilo_tokens.

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 frames the tool as a 'launch prerequisite' and explains cluster=devnet for pre-launch observability, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_ilo_details, or when-not to call it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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