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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the wallet:read OAuth requirement and the null-return behavior for FLR-side reward streams. It goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, all of which earn their place: the core return value, the current network coverage limitation, and the authentication requirement. 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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description supplies sufficient context for selection and invocation: what is returned, which networks/reward streams are included now, what returns null, and what auth scope is needed. An agent can decide correctly.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain.

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 verb and resource: 'Return claimable rewards across networks for the calling wallet.' It also clearly scopes current behavior to SGB FTSO claimable and explains that FLR-side streams return null, which distinguishes it from the other get_my_* sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear context about when FLR-side data is unavailable and requires OAuth scope wallet:read as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the limitation 'return null until then' effectively tells an agent when not to expect FTSO/MIRROR/FlareDrop/validation rewards.

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