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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the monerod distribution data lags the tip by roughly 5,000 blocks, and the response discloses the real height and the lag. That lag caveat is exactly the kind of trait an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then usage, then boundary, then returns - a logical order with no filler sentences. It is slightly long and mildly repetitive ('This is the anonymity-set side of Monero that free explorers rarely expose' partially restates the opening), which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the return shape (tip_height, queried_range, data_lags_tip_by_blocks, start_height, outputs_before_start, distribution[]), so an agent knows what it will receive and what the counts mean.

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% and both parameters document their defaults, so baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining why the defaults exist ('default range is 5,010 to 5,000 blocks back') and that the response reports the lag, giving the agent a reason to adjust the range rather than just a syntax.

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 resource and measurement ('how many spendable outputs fall into each ring-size bucket') plus its provenance ('read from our own monerod'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like xmr_get_block, xmr_get_network_stats, and xmr_get_mempool_state. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly structured as 'When to use: reasoning about Monero privacy - how large the spendable-output set is at a given height' and 'Do not use: to guess a privacy score'. It also names a concrete boundary condition (5,000-block lag) that changes how an agent should call it.

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