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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the return contents (per-pool supply across 6 pools), which is the key behavioral trait for an info tool, but says nothing about read-only status, idempotency, rate limits, auth requirements, or response format. Reasonable but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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 purpose, then bracketed 【何时用】/【不要用】 markers that make routing scannable. Every clause earns its place and nothing is restated from the name or schema.

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 zero-param read-only info tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, exclusion, and returned fields well. The only residual gap is response shape/format, which the absent output schema leaves unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%, trivially), so there is no parameter semantics to convey. Per the baseline rule, 0 params scores 4 with no description-side compensation required.

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 (查询 Zcash 主网信息) and enumerates the exact payload: 6 value pools (transparent/sprout/sapling/orchard/lockbox/ironwood). It explicitly frames this as 【屏蔽池状态】 and names the sibling chain_status as a different concern, so an agent can separate it from zec_recent_blocks and chain_status without opening a 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?

Provides explicit 【何时用】 with a concrete trigger ('shielded/sapling/orchard 池子里有多少 ZEC / 隐私池规模') and an explicit 【不要用】 that routes node-sync questions to chain_status(zec). This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad, not just implied usage.

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