rustchain_lottery_eligibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks eligibility and returns status, attestation info, and enrollment status, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, which are important for a tool involving rewards.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and return values. Since an output schema exists, it need not detail return formats, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error handling.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that miner_id is a 'miner wallet address to check eligibility for', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type definition. Since there is only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('miner eligibility for epoch lottery rewards'), distinguishing it from siblings like rustchain_balance or rustchain_miners. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being tautological.

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 usage context by specifying 'miner' and 'epoch lottery rewards', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rustchain_epoch or rustchain_stats. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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