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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies that the tool returns combined data across two venues, lists the key data points (balances, allowances, rewards, NFT boost, APR, global pool stats), and clarifies the global-stats-only behavior without an address. It doesn't mention non-mutating nature explicitly, but 'Returns' strongly implies a read operation.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loaded to state the core purpose and venues. The second sentence lists included data and the optional address behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned data categories (balances, allowances, earned rewards, NFT boost, APR, global pool stats). It covers both invocation modes (with/without address) and gives enough context for an agent to call appropriately. Missing details like address format or error handling are minor for this simple read tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by explaining the effect of omitting the address: 'Without address, returns global stats only.' This is not present in the schema, which only marks the parameter as optional.

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 action ('Returns combined position') and specifies the resource: both MoggerStaking and JESTERGOONER V4 staking venues. It also differentiates from siblings by naming the exact venues and the tokens involved (MEGACHAD, MEGAGOONER, MC/MG LP), which no other sibling tool covers.

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 provides implicit usage guidance by explaining the two modes: with an address (per-wallet position) and without (global stats only). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the unique scope makes alternatives unnecessary. It also lists what data is included, helping the agent decide when to use it.

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