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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the data is read directly from Regen's public LCD API with no Vealth backend caching, any unreadable figure reports honestly instead of defaulting to zero, and the total is withheld until every figure is known. The keyless/no-private-key guarantee also reinforces the read-only annotation with a concrete security promise.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: what is returned and from where, failure/aggregation semantics, and security posture. The core purpose is front-loaded, and even the provenance parenthetical (same LCD API as Vealth's explorer, no caching) earns its place by establishing trust in the data.

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 a single fully documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds every remaining operational detail an agent needs: live data source, no-cache provenance, honest partial-failure behavior, total aggregation rule, and keylessness. Nothing required for a 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the input schema already documents the regen1… bech32 format plus the 0x… exclusion. The description only echoes 'regen1… address' and 'only the address' without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 (any regen1… address) and enumerates exactly what is returned: live balance, bonded stake, unclaimed staking rewards, and REGEN locked in governance deposits. This content-level specificity clearly distinguishes it from siblings like regen_burn_tracker, regen_token_volume, and regen_governance_status without needing to open their schemas.

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 makes the tool's context clear — it returns a live holdings snapshot for any regen1… address — so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it never names sibling tools or states when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., when historical volume or burn stats are needed instead), leaving alternative routing purely to inference.

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