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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: epoch defaulting, strict wallet scoping, what flags mean for zero scores, and the caveat that rewards are discretionary, retroactive, and not a financial return. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core result and scope, then moves efficiently into epoch semantics, zero-score interpretation, reward disclaimers, and workflow context. Every sentence adds value and the structure is scannable despite the length.

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 and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: scope, epoch behavior, flags, reward caveats, and how to pair this with get_my_performance. The minor caller_id omission has limited impact on overall completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter docs. It meaningfully explains epoch's "YYYY-MM" format/default and wallet_address through the wallet-scoped constraint, but it never mentions caller_id, leaving one parameter under-explained.

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 exactly what the tool returns: the caller's own hive contribution score for a monthly epoch, and explicitly marks it as a free read. It distinguishes itself from score/leaderboard siblings by emphasizing wallet-scoped output that never includes another wallet or fleet ranking.

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 wallet-scoped statement tells the agent when not to use this tool (for another wallet or fleet ranking), and the workflow note situates it alongside get_my_performance for a review step. It does not name a direct alternative for leaderboard-style queries, so guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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