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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotent, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reads live via ownerOf at call time, never assumes ownership, is free/keyless, and explicitly cannot sign or move anything. It also clarifies the deliberate separation of oHYDX and veHYDX, which goes beyond the annotation surface.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Everything about a veHYDX... read live') and packs details efficiently. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured for scanning.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the tool's scope (veHYDX and oHYDX), ownership resolution, unlockability, and usage scenarios, making it complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds value by explaining the address parameter is optional and that omitting it reads the server's own position, which clarifies the default behavior. It does not elaborate on tokenIds, but since the schema already describes it, a 4 is justified (baseline 3 plus a slight boost).

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 states the tool reads a veHYDX position with specific attributes (owner, voting power, locked HYDX, unlockability) and also handles oHYDX separately. It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly distinguishes oHYDX from veHYDX, making its purpose unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 provides clear usage context: pass an address or omit it to read the server's own position, with owner resolved live. It does not name alternative tools like hydrex_votes or hydrex_claimable, but the guidance on how to invoke and what to expect is clear, which meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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