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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates read-only behavior via 'Returns' and adds transparency by including the exact formula for weekly emissions. However, it does not disclose potential caveats such as whether the data is pulled live from the chain, data freshness, or any error conditions. The formula and scope of returned data are helpful but not exhaustive.

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 exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey the full scope of the tool. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and key data components, while the second provides the exact mathematical formula. No words are wasted, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It enumerates all the major data points returned (full schedule, current week, on-chain weekly emission, EmissionController split) and includes the formula. The main gap is the lack of detail about the output format or structure (e.g., whether it returns an array), but for such a simple tool, this is a minor omission.

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, and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and since the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps, it deserves this score.

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's function with the verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as the MEGAGOONER emission schedule. It provides specific details about the schedule (225-week duration), additional data components (current week, on-chain weekly emission, EmissionController split), and even includes the formula. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other metrics or build transactions.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related data. The intended usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but the dimension requires explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, which is absent.

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