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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'static facts,' implying a read-only operation with no side effects, and lists the data categories returned. This is adequate for a simple informational tool, though it could additionally disclose that the tool never makes external calls or changes state, but such details are reasonably inferred from 'static facts.'

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 a single, information-dense sentence. The core action ('Static facts about the Stellaroid Earn Soroban contract') is front-loaded, followed by the specific content types and a clear usage directive ('Use this first to orient'). No words are wasted, and every phrase adds value.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states what data is returned, that it is static, and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the absence of dynamic behavior or error conditions, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it.

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 the input schema contributes nothing. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description does not conflict with any parameter semantics, and it implicitly clarifies that no input is required, which is useful for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving static facts about the Stellaroid Earn Soroban contract. It specifies the exact content (contract ID, network, audit/documentation links) and explicitly contrasts with siblings by labeling itself as 'static facts,' distinguishing it from dynamic tools like get_opportunity or recent_events. The verb 'get' and resource 'contract info' are precise 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?

The description includes an explicit usage instruction: 'Use this first to orient.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool (as a preliminary step) and implicitly signals that other tools are for subsequent, more specific queries. It provides clear context that alternatives exist for dynamic data, making the routing decision straightforward.

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