Query Leadership Schedule

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main added value is the return format ('List of slots where the pool is elected to produce blocks'), which is useful since no output schema exists. It does not mention that the VRF signing key file is sensitive local material or note any constraints on the computation.

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?

Front-loads the one-sentence purpose before the conventional Args/Returns docstring sections. Well organized and appropriately sized, though the Args block duplicates schema content rather than adding to it.

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 no output schema, the 'Returns' line is necessary and it is supplied clearly. For a deterministic computation tool with fully documented params and annotation-covered safety, the description is complete; only edge cases (e.g., invalid key path or malformed nonce) go unmentioned.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with types, defaults, and descriptions; baseline is 3. The description's Args block largely restates the schema, adding only a scale example for relative_stake ('e.g., 0.001'), which is a small value-add but not enough to exceed the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the leadership schedule for a stake pool operator.' This is unambiguous about what the tool produces. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, though no sibling tool computes a block production schedule, so the gap is minor.

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 'for a stake pool operator' implies the audience and use case (an SPO planning block production) but never states when to call this versus other query tools or what prerequisites exist. Usage is only inferable from context, not spelled out.

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