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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: 'Mainnet only,' a 'snapshot refreshed every 15 minutes,' and the caveat that reference hardware prices 'are curated by Unity Nodes and can lag the market.' It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but it covers the most consequential behavior (data freshness/staleness) for this tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by the field enumeration, then freshness and routing caveats. The middle sentence is a long run-on list, but each item carries real information about the return payload rather than filler.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the returned fields, states scope (mainnet), freshness (15-minute refresh), and known limitations (lagging price data), leaving no obvious gap an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema provides; the baseline of 4 applies. The enumeration of returned content compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 names a specific resource (Celestia staking economics / validator running costs) and enumerates the exact contents returned: staking APR, inflation, staked share, annual provisions, per-provider hosting costs, break-even stake at 20% commission, and top-validator earnings. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_celestia_validator or get_network_state 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?

It explicitly routes to alternatives for adjacent needs: 'for live server prices use list_datacenter_offers' and 'for the TIA price use get_network_state.' This states when-not and names the correct sibling, which is exactly what avoids mis-selection.

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