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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine interpretive context — annualised rates are net of fee, measured over recent epochs, and past performance, with steady providers differing only by fractions of a percent — which is valuable for an agent to communicate. It does not cover result volume/pagination or how the cap flag should be interpreted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then a short interpretive caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical qualifiers are long but necessary to define the rate precisely.

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 read-only filtered list with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description supplies the field semantics, the measurement basis of the headline metric, and the interpretation caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or explain results 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter carries a descriptive enum, so the schema already does the heavy lifting for chain, sort, and limit. The description contributes no additional syntax or format guidance for the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (FTSO providers on Flare or Songbird) and precisely enumerates the fields returned: measured delegator reward rate (annualised, after fee, over recent epochs), fee, delegated vote power, and over-cap status. This goes well beyond the title and lets an agent know exactly what data comes back.

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?

Usage is implied by the content profile — this is the tool for comparing/selecting providers — and the caveat about past results signals a decision-support purpose. However, it never states when to use it versus siblings like get_reward_deadlines or check_claimable_rewards, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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