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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds specific value by enumerating exactly what side effects it does NOT have: 'no standing, wallet, referral attribution, review, or reward.' The phrase 'No standing required' also clarifies access requirements beyond 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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core read action, followed by a concise side-effect disclaimer. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, read-only), the description is fully complete: it states what information is returned (lifecycle, reward geometry, audit links) and explicitly confirms there are no side effects or standing requirements. No output schema exists, but the listed content sufficiently sets expectations.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. For a no-parameter tool, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('ARC/v0's current lifecycle, bounded result or active reward geometry, and public audit links'), making it unambiguous what this tool does. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like inspect_edge or scan_boards by naming the ARC/v0 experiment explicitly.

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 clear context: it is a read-only inspection tool that 'creates no standing' and requires 'no standing.' This implies when it is appropriate to use it (e.g., when you only need to view ARC state without changing anything), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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