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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds rich behavioral context: it explains the semantic distinction between the recomputed supply and GetInfo's potential undercount (display quirk), the error behavior (RPC_UNREACHABLE / INVALID_INPUT) when the daemon is unreachable without height, and the output structure including `match` being null when GetInfo isn't present. No contradiction with 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to call, input requirements, output). Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and then details usage and edge cases. Despite its length, it is concise because every segment adds necessary context.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description fully compensates by enumerating all output fields and their semantics (e.g., `match` true/false/null). It also clarifies the scope ('schedule CalcSupply only — NOT a UTXO census') and mentions related_docs, giving the agent a complete understanding of what to expect and how to handle the result. Given the tool's complexity, this is a complete description.

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% for the single parameter `height`, and the schema already documents its type and default. The description adds the failure condition ('If the daemon is unreachable you MUST pass height — otherwise the tool returns RPC_UNREACHABLE / INVALID_INPUT'), which is beyond the schema's wording and clarifies the consequence of non-compliance. This minor addition lifts the score above the baseline 3.

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 purpose: recompute DERO total supply via CalcSupply, optionally cross-checking with DERO.GetInfo.total_supply. It uses a specific verb ('recompute'), names the exact method (CalcSupply) and data sources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dero_get_info by noting the GetInfo undercount quirk. The composite nature is clearly defined.

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 explicitly lists trigger phrases ('what is the total supply', 'does GetInfo match the schedule', 'verify the supply') and states when to use it over alternatives ('PREFER this over reading GetInfo alone'). It also provides a concrete prerequisite: passing `height` when the daemon is unreachable, and recommends citing related_docs. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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