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

With only readOnlyHint=true supplied, the description adds real behavioral context: the output is a single combined plan, addresses are non-derivable external inputs, and a wrong address fails silently ('claims nothing rather than failing loudly') — a meaningful hazard worth surfacing. It does not discuss how the plan is returned or sequenced, but the output schema can carry that.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does before the input rationale and the sibling contrast. The middle sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is filler and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

Covers the parts an agent could plausibly get wrong — sourcing the contract addresses and choosing between voter-reward and gauge-emission claims — while the output schema and field descriptions handle chain restriction, token lists, and return shape. Complete for a plan-preparation tool of this size.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining why `fees`/`bribes` are mandatory (per-pool contracts obtainable only from a Sugar rewards read) and by framing `claim_rebase` as an optional compounding add-on. That rationale is not present in the schema text.

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 — claiming a veNFT's voting rewards (fees, bribes, or both, plus optional rebase) as a single plan — and explicitly separates itself from prepare_aerodrome_gauge_claim by contrasting voter rewards with LP emissions. An agent can place this tool without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative (prepare_aerodrome_gauge_claim) and the condition that selects it, plus the prerequisite that fee/bribe contract addresses must come from a Sugar rewards read. It stops short of routing the agent to the specific Sugar read tool (prepare_aerodrome_sugar_reads) or addressing other claim-style siblings such as prepare_ve33_claim_fees.

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