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

There are no annotations for read-only or destructive behavior, so the description carries the full burden. The term 'info' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and listing metrics like 'height' and 'supply' reinforces that. However, the description does not explicitly state that the tool performs no state changes, which would be ideal given the absence of annotations. It also does not mention any potential rate limits, costs, or real-time guarantees beyond the word 'Live.'

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, compact sentence that lists all relevant output components. It avoids unnecessary detail, filler words, or complex structure. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose without wasting any tokens.

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 tool's simplicity and zero parameters, the description is largely complete. It names the output fields and indicates the live nature of the data. It could be marginally improved by explicitly stating that it is the appropriate tool for network-wide metrics rather than individual records, but the lack of parameters and the clear list of outputs make it easy for an agent to understand 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to add beyond the empty schema. The description correctly implies that no input is required, which aligns with the schema. Since the schema is fully covered by the empty parameter list, no additional explanation is needed, and the description adds value by hinting at the output scope.

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 identifies the tool as providing live AmanChain network information, enumerating specific data points (height, difficulty, supply, burns, agent economy stats). Although no explicit verb like 'get' is used, the word 'info' unambiguously indicates a retrieval operation, and the list makes the purpose precise. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on transactions, services, or market data.

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 implies that this tool is used to fetch network-level metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools. For example, it does not mention that aman_get_tx should be used for individual transactions or that aman_price is for market data. Given the tool's zero parameters and singular focus, the absence of explicit alternative guidance is a minor gap, but the description is still self-explanatory enough for an agent to select it correctly in most cases.

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