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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a valuable behavioral trait beyond the schema ('A collector earns 0 today — the twig-root verifier is designed, not built'), which correctly sets expectations about non-reward. It omits auth requirements, idempotency, rate limits, and whether output is live vs cached.

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 concept (how MMR splits into shards) before detailing parameters and the economic caveat, and every sentence adds information. It is dense and jargon-heavy but not padded.

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 does describe the return contents (your shard, a spinner config with best RPC per chain, the one command) and flags the zero-earning caveat. It is reasonably complete, missing only prerequisites/when-to-use framing for a read-planning tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's notes on `me` and `collectors` largely restate the schema without adding syntax or format detail; `replication` is unexplained in the prose. 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 states a specific resource (shard assignment of MMR/superroot twigs across collectors) with a concrete mechanism ('balanced into shards, rendezvous-assigned to the swarm nodes'), distinguishing it from siblings like taifoon_superroot and taifoon_grid_pool. However, heavy jargon ('MMR', 'twig-root verifier', 'spinner config') obscures the exact output without prior context, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete usage for one path ('Pass `me` ... to get the shard YOU would take') and notes the `collectors` alternative for synthetic planning, implying when each applies. But it names no sibling alternative and no explicit when-not-to-use condition, leaving usage inferable rather than stated.

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