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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool applies no third-party pool label list, states the block range, and clarifies the output categories. It does not mention failure modes, data freshness, or exact units, but for a read-only chain-intel tool the disclosed scope is sufficient.

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 dense but well-organized: the core output is front-loaded, followed by a clear 'When to use' section and a 'Scope' close. Splitting the long first sentence would improve readability, but there is no wasted or redundant content.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and its self-imposed scope. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly; only a small gap remains around how values are represented (e.g., percentages vs raw ZEC).

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already describes it fully ('How many recent blocks to classify (default 200)' with min/max). The description's 'last 10-500 blocks' only reinforces the schema, adding no new semantic information, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource ('Zcash coinbase attribution') and precisely lists the outputs: shielded-pool share, consensus funding vs miner payout split, and miner-embedded pool tags including the /RobotBase/ tag. The scope line distinguishes it from any third-party-label tool and from sibling tools like zec_shielded_pools_metrics.

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 'When to use' clause naming three concrete scenarios: privacy-pool mining trends, shielded adoption, and checking whether our own pool found blocks. It does not name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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