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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description carries less burden. It still adds real value beyond them: an explicit version gate (THORNode v3.20+) and the concrete failure mode (501 Not Implemented on older networks), which directly informs error handling.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the primary behavior leads and the version/error caveat follows. Nothing redundant and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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 read-only, two-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what is returned, for which inputs, and what happens on unsupported networks. The remaining gap is disambiguation from get_stable_reserve and any hint of the response shape.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the lookup needs a stable asset and an address, adding no format, casing, or normalization detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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: it returns a contributor's Stable Reserve credit, scoped to a stable asset and address. That is materially clearer than a tautology and lets an agent match it to the Stable Reserve domain, but it never mentions the sibling get_stable_reserve, so the boundary between the two is left for the agent to infer.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternative get_stable_reserve. The version note reads as a prerequisite/behavioral caveat rather than usage routing, so an agent has no help choosing this tool over its sibling.

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