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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: no claim endpoint, no RPC access, rate limits (20/min, 1 per 3s), and detailed claimTransaction semantics including the meaning of absence. No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense, covering purpose, exclusions, behavioral caveats, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the core function and every sentence carries important information, though a multi-paragraph or bulleted structure might aid scannability.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly explaining the rewards[].rewardItems[] shape, claimTransaction presence/absence semantics, chain-specific behavior, and rate limits. It covers all aspects an agent needs to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both walletAddress and reloadChain fully described. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the rate-limit note is operational context, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a wallet's aggregated rewards/earnings across all reward sources (e.g. Merkle)', including claimed/available USD totals. It also explicitly excludes base rebalancer yield/APY and directs that to get_balances, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it tells the agent that base rebalancer yield is not included and can be found in get_balances' netEarning field. It also states there is no backend claim endpoint and no RPC access, so the tool cannot be used for claiming. Rate limits are included as operational guidance.

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