Check public participant status

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it infers network from address when appropriate, rejects conflicts, and returns component provenance. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and paints a clear picture of runtime behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in substantive behavioral details (network inference, conflict rejection, provenance) without unnecessary filler. Every clause adds value and the length is appropriate.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering basic safety, the description adds enough context to understand the tool's behavior and output character. It lacks explicit parameter disambiguation and usage alternatives, but the combination of description, schema, and annotations is reasonably complete for a focused check tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly addresses the 'network' parameter via 'infer network from the address.' The 'address' parameter is implied but not explicitly described, and 'bondId' is not mentioned at all. The description does not clarify the role or constraints of each parameter sufficiently.

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 begins with 'Read public participant state,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It further distinguishes it from siblings by including participant-specific behaviors like network inference, conflict rejection, and provenance return, which are unique among the listed 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 phrase 'when appropriate' implies conditional use based on network inference, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative sibling tools. It provides general context but lacks direct usage guidance.

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