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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the return fields and states a scope limitation ('RobotBase does not index Monero wallets or ring signatures'), which is useful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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-loads the node-state summary, then when-to-use, then when-not-to-use, then returns. The returns enumeration is somewhat long, but since there is no output schema it earns its place; only minor trimming would be possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers scope, usage, and routing. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds no misleading parameter information.

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+resource ('Monero node state') and enumerates the exact facets covered (height vs target, sync flag, difficulty, txpool size, database size, version, peer counts). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like xmr_get_network_stats and xmr_get_mempool_state.

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 when-to-use ('whether the XMR node is synced and healthy, or how big its chain and txpool are') and explicit when-not-to-use routing to named alternatives (xmr_get_fee_rates, xmr_get_transaction, xmr_get_network_stats). Nothing is left to inference.

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