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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description goes well beyond them: it explains the semantic distinction between cherry.balance and cherry.claimable, guarantees claimable mirrors the claim-voucher rule, and details the sbt_naming_window deadline, the permanence of an engraved name, and the 10🍒 credit. This is genuinely additive behavioral context.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose and dense with field-level meaning, but it is long and some output-field exposition could live in a structured output schema if one existed. Every sentence does address information an agent needs, so waste is minimal.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: field-by-field meaning, claimable semantics, wallet linkage, and the SBT naming window flow. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema or description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is needed or missing.

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 opens with 'Your continuity view' and then enumerates the exact contents (authenticated_as, contributions, cherry balance/claimable, reputation tier), so an agent knows precisely what this returns. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like get_stats or get_token_intel, which cover different resources.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('Call this to see your standing') and routes the agent onward, telling it to answer the naming window with the sbt_name tool and relating claimable to POST /cherries/claim-voucher. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like get_stats, but the trigger conditions are well covered.

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