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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations it adds high-value context: no API key required, no side effects on chain/board/keys, and interpretive guidance that empty buyback rows and empty arrays are expected rather than failures. The fee-map breakdown (60/15/25, referred 60/15/5/20) further clarifies what the tape reports.

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 verb+resource, then cleanly sectioned into when-to-use, when-not-to-use, expected anomalies, fee map, return shape, and side effects. Dense but every clause (empty-array semantics, fee split, no-API-key) earns its place; only slightly verbose.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object (ok, generatedAt, platform, stats, coins[], remits[], buybacks[]) and flags the non-error empty cases. Together with the usage and behavioral detail, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100% — the single `limit` parameter is fully documented with bounds, default, and example. The description never mentions `limit`, but the schema carries that burden, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the public CrewPay proof tape (GET /api/proof)') and enumerates the data it covers (fee-share-locked launches, creator-fee remits, buyback runs). It explicitly names the siblings it is not (crew_status, crew_list_launches, crew_crank_remits), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('after a launch or crew_crank_remits, to show public proof that remits posted, or to inspect tape totals') and when-not-to-use with reasons tied to specific sibling tools. Nothing is left to inference.

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