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

The description provides detailed behavioral information beyond the annotations: it enumerates the exact components returned (total_score, rank, multiplier, metrics, quests), explains that points come only from costly actions, and includes a disclaimer about future token distribution. This fully discloses what the tool does and its implications.

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 moderately long but well-structured with clear lists and colons. It packs a lot of useful information without excessive verbosity, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrases like 'campaign-layer view' and 'anti-farm'.

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?

The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and its context. It covers output components, the underlying score derivation, and the disclaimer. Even though the output schema is not shown, the description compensates by explicitly listing the return fields.

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 provides no descriptions for the parameters, and the description does not clarify them either. The wallet_address parameter is self-explanatory, but caller_id is ambiguous and not explained. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meaning insufficient.

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 a specific purpose: it is a user-facing score view that returns rank, multiplier, metrics, and quests. It distinguishes itself from the underlying get_crank_score by labeling itself as 'user-facing' and 'campaign-layer view', making its role unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when a user-facing, campaign-level score is needed) versus the lower-level get_crank_score. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other related tools like get_score_leaderboard or get_my_contribution_score, though the naming and context make the choice reasonably clear.

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