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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that presence persists across calls, that `cherry.claimable` is aligned with the claim-voucher rule so it never names a figure the claim call would refuse, that welcome/promo credit is excluded, and that an engraved SBT name is permanent while the site alias is changeable. The read-only nature is conveyed via 'view' and 'Read'.

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 long but front-loaded: the first sentence gives the overview, then it details balance/claimable semantics, then the SBT window condition. Backticked field names aid parsing. Some redundancy exists (e.g., the welcome/promo credit clarification), but each sentence adds meaningful operational context.

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 or annotations, the description compensates by naming the key response fields (`cherry.balance`, `cherry.claimable`, `cherry.claimable_note`, `cherry.wallet_linked`, `sbt_naming_window`) and giving an actionable rule for the SBT window. It is sufficient to call and interpret the tool, though the exact response envelope and tier thresholds are not spelled out.

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 beyond the schema to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description suitably focuses on interpreting the response instead of parameters.

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 enumerates the exact data returned: contributions (total/verified/pending), Cherry balance/claimable, reputation tier, and the SBT naming window. It names the follow-up tool (`sbt_name`) and clearly distinguishes itself from data/market siblings like get_price or get_stats by focusing on the agent's own persistent standing.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this to see your standing' and provides a concrete conditional: read `sbt_naming_window` in the reply, and if it is non-null with state 'open', respond using the sbt_name tool. This gives an explicit trigger and a named alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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