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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds meaningful output behavior: rows are ordered highest first, paging uses limit/offset, total is the count of rewarded addresses, and next_offset is null on the last page. It does not cover error behavior or edge cases, but it discloses the key runtime semantics.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by page semantics and then the sibling comparison. It is dense but efficiently packed, with only a slightly awkward phrase ('One close's per Agent rewards') and an ambiguous trailing '(CSV in csv)'.

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 still explains the returned columns, ordering, pagination fields, and total/next_offset semantics, which is enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly. The read-only annotations cover the safety profile, so no important invocation context 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%, so the schema already explains epoch, limit, offset, and segment in detail, including the archived-segment caveat. The description mentions paging with limit and offset but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 resource (per-Agent rewards for one close) and enumerates the returned row fields (rank, epoch, segment, addr, reward), sorted highest first and paged. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_epoch by noting this is for payouts beyond get_epoch's top_rewards.

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?

Names the sibling alternative get_epoch and the condition that selects this tool: when the caller needs payouts beyond get_epoch's top_rewards. It does not spell out when not to use this tool or whether it is the right choice for current versus archived segments, but the main routing cue is clear.

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