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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses read-only behavior, absence of side effects, and what is returned (recent rocks plus aggregate stats). It doesn't mention potential errors or auth requirements, but for a simple read-only browse, this is adequate and honest.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key behavioral qualifier and return contents. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. Excellent structural efficiency.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and return value content. It explains the ordering (recently minted), the parameter effect, and the additional stats, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already describes the `limit` parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the limit applies to returned rocks and that aggregate stats are additionally included, which is not explicit in the schema. This enriches the semantic understanding without duplication.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Browse recently minted Treat.rocks rocks'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings (buy_rock, gift_rock, get_rock) by explicitly stating it is read-only and for browsing recent items, not for individual retrieval or transactions.

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?

The description provides strong contextual guidance by stating 'Read-only — no purchase, no wallet, no confirmation needed,' which clearly signals when not to use this tool (for transactions) and implies it is for exploration. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for purchasing, gifting, or fetching a specific rock, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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