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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds critical behavioral context: it 'Does NOT submit a block' and explains the response is a 'block template payload suitable for a mining client.' This goes beyond the annotations to clarify the tool's non-mutating nature and output format.

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 concise and well-organized: starts with the core action, then usage guidance, then input requirements, then output and note. No redundant information, every sentence serves a purpose, and key warnings are highlighted with 'CRITICAL.'

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 tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, usage, all inputs, output nature, and a critical note about submission. It provides everything an agent needs to correctly call and interpret the tool without missing critical information.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description enriches each parameter: it states wallet_address MUST be a valid DERO address with specific prefixes, clarifies that block is optional and its effect ('include the raw block blob'), and labels miner as 'Optional miner id / label.' This adds practical guidance beyond the schema definitions.

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 the tool's function: 'Get a mining block template for a miner payout address' and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling dero_get_last_block_header by advising to prefer that for general chain-tip inspection. The verb 'Get' with resource 'mining block template' is specific and 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?

Provides explicit when-to-call guidance: 'ONLY when you are actually mining' and points to an alternative tool for other scenarios: 'PREFER dero_get_last_block_header for general chain-tip inspection.' This directly helps the agent choose the correct tool.

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