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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the spec is static and needs no network, so it always answers — a reliability guarantee an agent can rely on.

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?

Content list followed by the two highest-value facts (static/no-network, read-first) front-loaded with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what payload to expect.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description must convey what comes back, and it does — the enumerated spec sections. An agent knows the scope of the payload and when to consult it, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (the 8004 NONCE specification) and enumerates exactly what it contains: PoW rule and preimage layout, mint calldata, price curve, rarity derivation, selectors, and safety rules. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nonce_info, nonce_mine, and nonce_mint_packet.

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?

'Read this FIRST before mining or minting' gives explicit sequencing guidance tied to the nonce_mine and nonce_mint_packet siblings. It stops short of naming alternatives to use instead for other purposes, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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