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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful domain context by explaining that the result is a vesting unlock calendar with POA unlocks and post-unlock circulating supply, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope and included 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?

For a read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough conceptual detail about what the calendar contains: upcoming POA unlocks at epoch close and circulating supply afterward. The only notable gap is the undocumented limit parameter.

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?

There is one parameter, limit, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It neither clarifies pagination behavior nor explains how limit affects the returned unlock schedule.

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 specifies a clear resource and scope: a network-wide vesting unlock calendar showing POA unlocking at upcoming epoch closes and circulating supply afterward. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_current_epoch and get_epoch, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase "upcoming epoch close" implies the tool is for future unlock schedules, giving implicit usage guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer this over get_current_epoch, get_epoch, or get_network_summary.

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