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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the 'compact' framing and implicitly the trade-off versus the bulky alternative, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or caching. The idempotentHint=false is consistent with a changing churn height, so no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first enumerates the return contents, the second handles routing. Both are front-loaded and information-dense.

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 compensates by listing what the summary contains (node counts, APY, reserve, pooled RUNE, churn height, vault flag), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide relevance. Nothing essential is missing.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and 100% schema coverage applies trivially. Baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 (network status summary) and enumerates the exact contents returned: node counts, bonding/liquidity APY, reserve, pooled RUNE, churn height, vault migration flag. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_network_info.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Prefer this over get_network_info, which returns large per-node bond arrays.' Names the alternative and the condition (verbosity/size) that selects this tool instead.

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