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

The description presents a pure read-and-report operation ('Report which... schemes the node enables and this build can sign'), yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. A capability query that destroys state is not what the description describes, so the two are in direct conflict. Despite otherwise rich context (build requirement for FN-DSA-512, network scope), the contradiction forces the lowest score.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the caveats. Some jargon density (TIP-899, FN-DSA-512, gotron-mcp-pq) but each sentence carries distinct information: what is reported, which network supports it, and what signing requires.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting and mostly succeeds, explaining the subject of the report and the can_sign field. It could go slightly further in describing the shape of the returned capability list, but the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and no parameter details are required in the description.

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 (report) and a precisely scoped resource (TIP-899 post-quantum signature schemes the node enables and this build can sign). No sibling tool touches PQ capabilities, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from the TRON/account/transaction tools listed alongside it.

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?

It gives implicit usage context ('TIP-899 is a draft live only on Nile', 'signing also needs local mode with a keystore') which tells the agent when results are meaningful. However, it never states explicitly when to call this versus other capability/introspection tools, and offers no exclusions.

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