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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the default block window and event limit ('last 2000 blocks (~8 min on MegaETH), 50 events'), the event types included, and the time-ordered nature. This goes beyond the basic read-only implication of the name and gives useful 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Unified time-ordered feed') and then provides relevant specifics. Every clause adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 simple read-only feed with two optional parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what events are included and the default scope. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear enumeration of event categories, so an agent knows what to expect. A small gap is the absence of any note about pagination or return structure, but it is not critical.

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 schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the 'blocks' parameter corresponds to a time window ('~8 min on MegaETH'), which helps the agent understand the real-world impact of the parameter beyond the schema's dry definitions.

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 clearly states the tool provides a 'unified time-ordered feed of recent on-chain events across the MEGA Protocol stack,' listing specific event types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual protocols or specific data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description gives clear context on when to use this tool: for a broad, cross-stack activity feed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined enough that an agent can infer its applicability.

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