get_rune_unlock_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('unlock block height and estimated date') and implies a read-only query, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens when the name is already etched. Partial behavioral disclosure only.

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 the core action front-loaded and the return values appended. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema, the description appropriately covers return values (unlock block height and estimated date). For a one-param read tool this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (already-etched names, invalid names) is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% (name: 'Rune name to check availability for'), so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description restates 'rune name' without adding format, constraint, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check') and resource ('rune name' + availability for etching) with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_rune_info and list_runes by focusing on unlock timing, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to route against.

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 implies the use case (checking rune name availability/unlock timing) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer that this is the right call versus get_rune_info or list_runes.

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