list_tron_witnesses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral details: APR estimation assumptions (3-second blocks, 27 active SRs, 365 days), best-effort nature, and how rewards depend on missed blocks and voter shifts. It also mentions additional fields returned when address is provided, which annotations don't cover.

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 concise yet packed with essential information. It's front-loaded with the main purpose ('List TRON Super Representatives...') and efficiently covers usage, behavioral notes, and parameter details in a few sentences without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the response contains (APR, active status, ranking) and the constants used. It also covers the address-related extra fields. For a read-only list tool, this is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description still adds value: for 'address', it explains the additional return fields and purpose (diffing against target allocation); for 'includeCandidates', it clarifies that candidates have APR 0. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 it lists TRON Super Representatives and candidates ranked by vote count, distinguishing between active SRs (rank ≤ 27, block producers) and candidates. It also mentions optional address parameter for vote allocation details, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_solana_validators.

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 guidance on when to use the address parameter (to diff against target allocations before calling prepare_tron_vote) and explains default behavior (top-27 only) with an option to include candidates. While it doesn't explicitly list scenarios not to use this tool, the context of sibling tools implies it's for information gathering before voting.

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