BlurHook deployed privacy infrastructure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by explicitly disclaiming proof construction and deposit authorization, preventing an agent from expecting transaction-building behavior from a zero-parameter read tool. It omits any auth or rate-limit context, keeping it just under a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the positive capability before the scope disclaimer. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly repetitive of what a read-only hint already conveys.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and 'contract addresses and privacy scope' only gestures at the return shape without saying whether it is a single object, a list, or multiple chain entries. For a trivial zero-param read tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail that the empty schema contradicts.

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 gives a specific verb (read) and resource (BlurHook contract addresses and privacy scope) scoped to a named chain (Robinhood Chain), which is far more informative than the title alone. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, but the negative clause ('does not construct private proofs or authorize deposits') carves out boundaries against build_swap/simulate-style tools.

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?

Usage is implied: use this for read-only inspection of deployed BlurHook infrastructure. The exclusions tell the agent what this tool will NOT do, which is mild negative guidance, but it never says when to prefer this over hook_passport or list_hook_pools, which are the obvious near-neighbors.

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