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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: data is sourced directly from on-chain contracts and reflects live stats. It also discloses the unconfigured edge case via configured=false, which is useful behavior beyond the schema and 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?

Two tight sentences deliver the full scope, the data source, and the unconfigured state indicator with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool, the description fully equips an agent: it names the returned data fields, identifies the on-chain source, and explains the configured=false caveat. No output schema is present, but the listed metrics are enough to understand the response semantics.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are essentially not applicable. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing about parameters that the description needs to clarify.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('FlareWatch's Songbird FTSO entity'), and a concrete list of live on-chain stats. The specificity clearly separates this tool from siblings like get_flarewatch_validator or get_ftso_provider_metrics.

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 intended use is clear from context: call this when you need FlareWatch's SGB FTSO entity vote power, balance, fee, or reward rate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is unambiguous enough to route a correctly described request.

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