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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the address is masked in replies, only exact wallet/worker matches return data, and no listings are returned. It could mention error/empty behavior or prerequisites, but the privacy and match semantics are genuinely useful and specific.

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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, usage context, and privacy behavior with no filler. The most important action is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description lists the key return fields, so an agent understands what to expect. It covers required chain, optional lookup identifiers, exact-match behavior, and privacy. It could add detail about what happens when no match is found, but the overall call context is sufficiently complete.

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 67%, with chain, wallet, and worker already described. The description adds valuable semantic nuance: the lookup is performed 'by wallet address or worker name' and requires an exact match, which clarifies how the optional parameters are interpreted. It does not fully specify formatting requirements but compensates well beyond the raw 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Look up one miner on our own hashports') and enumerates the returned data (hashrate, shares, stale/invalid, difficulty, last-seen). It clearly identifies the lookup key (wallet address or worker name), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from generic pool or blockchain status 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?

The description includes an explicit usage trigger: 'a miner asks their agent how is my rig doing on robotbase?'. It also clarifies the exact-match/no-listing constraint, which prevents misuse for enumeration. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but no direct sibling appears to compete with this specific lookup.

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