Recommend Evernode hosts (live)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds real-time source (api.onledger.net), ranking criteria, and assurance of no invented data. This complements annotations without contradiction.

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: the first efficiently covers source, ranking modes, and filters; the second adds an alternative use case. No superfluous words.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters and existing output schema, the description covers core functionality (fetch/rank/filter) and important behavioral constraints (real data only). Agents have sufficient information to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 71% (5 of 7 parameters described). The description adds value by explaining the 'hosts' parameter for ranking a supplied list and the 'prefer' parameter's options (cheap/capacity/reputation), going beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs ('Fetch + rank') and identifies the resource ('live Evernode hosts from OnLedger'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on host recommendation, which is unique among the listed sibling 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?

The description provides clear context: fetch and rank live hosts, or pass your own list to rank. It states when to use it (real data) and what it avoids (never invents hosts). However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, though sibling separation is clear.

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