prepare_tron_claim_rewards

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

The description adds significant value beyond annotations: it discloses the transaction flow (returns preview + opaque handle, forward via send_transaction), the 24-hour cooldown constraint, and the error behavior ('TronGrid will reject'). Annotations only mark destructiveHint=true, but description provides operational context.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, constraint, prerequisite, and output/next step. No redundancy, front-loaded with 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?

Given the complexity (no output schema, need for prior tool, cooldown, and subsequent send_transaction), the description covers all necessary steps: prerequisite, behavior on failure, and how to proceed with the result.

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 100% and already describes the 'from' parameter as a Base58 address with cooldown mention. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema (it only mentions 'owner's balance' implicitly). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Build an unsigned TRON WithdrawBalance transaction that claims accumulated voting rewards') and the resource ('owner's balance'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'TRON claim rewards' and mentioning pairing with get_tron_staking, which is unique among the many prepare_ 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 description provides clear context: pair with get_tron_staking first to read claimableRewards and avoid empty-claim builds. It also warns about the 24-hour cooldown and potential rejections. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use it.

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