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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it is FREE (no payment required), and each open call is provably committed before the outcome via lock_hash, week's merkle root, and on-chain tx. That verification semantics is exactly the kind of trait annotations would otherwise provide. It omits return format details, pagination, and invalid-id behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and cost are front-loaded, then usage, then argument details — a sensible order with no wasted filler. The Args block is slightly verbose, but every sentence conveys non-obvious information, so structure is strong.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what comes back (open locked predictions plus recent scored results, with lock_hash, merkle root, and tx) and covers the id bounds. Error handling and result size are unaddressed, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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 0% (the schema only says 'Token Id': integer), so the description must compensate, and it does richly: valid ids run 1..total_minted, total_minted is read live from GET / on the oracle (274 as of 2026-09-12), it grows as souls mint, and it must never be hardcoded. This is meaningful semantics well beyond the bare schema.

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 — 'Full public record for ONE Undesirable soul: every open (locked) prediction and its recent scored results' — which an agent can immediately distinguish from a list-style sibling like souls_in_wallet. It does not name a competing sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5, but the singular scoping ('ONE') makes the intent 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 'Use this when:' clause gives explicit context — inspecting a specific soul's calls in detail, or verifying one — which is clear activation guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not/alternative bar for a 5.

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