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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by explaining the resolution semantics: the value is 'final resolved' after 'admin overrides and node voting consensus.' That tells the agent what the returned number actually represents, which is genuine behavioral context not present in the 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the resolution detail immediately after. Nothing is 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the value means and when to reach for it. It is nearly complete; only the missing sibling differentiation and the behavior on an unknown key keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself supplies example keys (CHURNINTERVAL, HALTTRADING), so the description's reference to 'a specific mimir key' adds little beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the documentation work.

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: 'Returns the effective value for a specific mimir key.' An agent knows exactly what it fetches. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings get_mimir, get_mimir_admin, and get_mimir_node, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

'Use this to check the current value of any individual protocol parameter' implies the usage context, but there is no when-not guidance and no naming of the alternatives (get_mimir for bulk, get_mimir_admin for overrides). The agent must infer which of the four mimir tools to call.

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