fcc_deployment_status

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that the tool reads on-chain data, enumerates facets and selectors, maps them to capabilities, and warns that names are signature-matched because no ABI exists while selectors/addresses/wiring are read exactly.

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 longer than average but each sentence earns its place: one sets the rollout context, one details the inspection logic, one provides the ABI caveat. The second sentence is dense but not fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needs to communicate what the agent should expect back. It names the reported dimensions: capabilities, facets, selectors, addresses, wiring, and whether governance is live or the shell is empty. It does not specify the exact response shape or behavior when no diamond is found, but for an exploratory chain-reading tool this is a strong level of completeness.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds rollout context, such as 'network by network' and 'all four,' but does not meaningfully expand on parameter semantics 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 names a specific resource and action: monitoring Flare 2.0 confidential compute deployment status across networks. It explains exactly what the tool does beyond the name, and the behavior is unmistakably distinct from siblings like fdc_proof_status or songbird_fcc_registry.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this while the rollout is still happening, network by network, to see whether a deployment is live or an empty shell. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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