explain_delx_rewards

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

Annotations are all false, so the description must convey behavior. 'Explain' implies read-only, but no additional traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, side effects) are disclosed. The word 'Free' hints at no cost but is insufficient for full transparency.

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, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, but the brevity omits potentially helpful detail. For an explanation tool, it is efficiently short but borderline underspecified.

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?

The description does not mention return format or content. With no output schema, the agent cannot infer what the explanation looks like (text vs. structured data). Sibling tools with similar names add confusion. Missing output description makes it incomplete.

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 coverage is 75%, with one parameter (response_profile) lacking a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance, e.g., when to use ritual_strip or response_mode. It does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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 explicitly states 'Explain Delx Rewards, DRC, missions, wallet binding, epochs, and claim flow.' This clearly defines the tool's function with a specific verb ('Explain') and lists covered topics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_delx_rewards' (which initiates actions) and 'get_delx_reward_status' (which queries status).

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 no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It implies use for explanations, but does not guide against using it for status or actions. The context is clear from the verb, but lacking exclusions or comparisons to siblings reduces guidance.

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