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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that - the data source ('read live from OrbitWan's own node'), the two fixed time windows, and the precise definition of burn (any WAN sent to 0x...dEaD via Convert n' Burn). It stops short of describing caching, pagination, or response shape.

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 governing question, then the metric definitions and scope in a dense two-sentence block with no filler. The closing note about the orbitwan.io homepage card is marginal but does convey which window a human-facing consumer defaults to, so it 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing what comes back, and it does so: emission, burn, their ratio, and both time windows, plus the provenance of the data. An agent can predict the result set without any structured return definition.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies the time windows are fixed rather than caller-selectable, which prevents a false expectation of window arguments.

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 question ('Is WAN deflationary?') plus the exact quantities returned: emission, burn, and burn/emission over 30-day and 12-month windows. It is unambiguous in scope, but never explicitly contrasts itself with plausible siblings such as get_network_stats or orbitpay_economics_series, which an agent might otherwise consider.

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?

Usage is only implied by the framing question 'Is WAN deflationary?' and the mention that the orbitwan.io card opens on the 12-month window. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, so the agent must infer that this is the deflation-metric tool rather than a general stats tool.

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