poa_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It lists returned values and notes 'answered (checked on the ledger),' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state that this is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how fresh the data is.

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 sentence fragment with poor structure. It is short but too terse to be useful, and the list-like format does not front-load the tool's purpose.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum state what the tool returns and why an agent would call it. Instead it offers only a partial field list, omitting context about the returned status object and its use.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any input values.

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 is a fragment listing field names ('Epoch, answered... balance, spendable, locked and established standing') without a verb or explicit statement of what the tool does. The name implies a status getter, but the description itself does not say it retrieves PoA status or distinguish it from siblings like poa_network_status or poa_epochs.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains no context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools such as poa_network_status or poa_epochs, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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