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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the trailing 'Behavior: read-only' mostly restates structured data. It adds that the numbers are 'live', which hints at freshness, but never explains caching, refresh cadence, or how 'live' is guaranteed. Useful field-level context, but no behavioral traits beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the payload contents, then a use/exclusion sentence, then a one-line behavior note — well ordered and short. The only waste is the 'Behavior: read-only' line, which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and could be spent on something the annotations do not cover.

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 zero params and no output schema, the description does the essential work by enumerating the return fields, so an agent knows what comes back. What is missing is operational detail such as data freshness/latency for 'live' values and whether the snapshot covers a single chain or many.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a zero-argument global snapshot rather than something requiring an address or agent ID.

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?

Enumerates the exact data returned (treasury address, custody model, unbonding cooldown, total stake, agents, slash events, founding-slot counts), which is far more specific than the name alone. It also carves out a boundary with 'Not for per-agent data', signaling it differs from per-agent reputation tools. It stops short of a clear verb and never names the sibling it is contrasted against.

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 trigger ('Use when you want the treasury address, custody model, unbonding cooldown and totals') plus a concrete use case ('for example before staking') and an exclusion ('Not for per-agent data'). The guidance is clear but does not name the alternative tool an agent should call for per-agent data.

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