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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these: data is resolved directly from chain ('a zero here is a real zero rather than a degraded API'), it is free and keyless, and it returns only calldata shapes without executing or signing anything. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a compact three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and includes useful behavioral details. Minor stylistic flourishes such as 'The money answer' and 'rather than a degraded API' add character but are not strictly necessary, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description covers data source, scope, per-NFT granularity, non-execution behavior, cost, and auth requirements, while the existing output schema handles return-value details. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking the address parameter to the voting wallet and explaining that rewards are tracked per veNFT (matching tokenIds). It also clarifies the computational scope (gauges, fee contracts, bribe contracts, reward tokens), which helps an agent understand how the parameters influence the result.

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 specifies a concrete function: compute exact claimable amounts per veNFT across fee and bribe contracts for every gauge a wallet votes for, then return calldata shapes. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from execution tools by stating it 'builds and signs nothing itself', which separates it from siblings like prepare_claim and submit_claim.

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 clearly states the context: use when you need to know claimable rewards and obtain calldata shapes for building a transaction, not for executing claims. It implies the boundary with 'builds and signs nothing itself', but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give a precise when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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