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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: no new request is made to minepoa.com, two consecutive bad reads halt a route while two good reads clear it, and Joining has a distinct rule where one 200 opens it, one 503 halts it, and a timeout flips nothing. That is exactly the kind of state-machine detail annotations cannot carry.

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 core answer (which routes are halted) and then the status vocabulary, with the action guidance placed last. The single dense paragraph is somewhat run-on, and the eight-route enumeration plus the Joining exception make it heavy, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must define the return shape itself, and it does: each route is open, halted (HTTP 503 with halt text), down, or unknown, with since, as_of, and stale, plus the separate swap_route field. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words on return semantics, which is the right allocation for a no-arg tool.

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 — returns which minepoa.com routes are halted per POAScan's own cached probes — and enumerates the exact routes covered (Hosted mining, Assignments, Grading, Path actions, Swap writes, Tx lookup, Address lookup, Joining) plus swap_route. An agent can distinguish it from get_indexer_status or get_verified_notices 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 a clear trigger: 'Use it before telling a user a route works, or when notices say nothing,' which implicitly contrasts it with the notices-based sibling. It does not name a specific alternative tool to call instead, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not routing seen in the top calibration example.

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