x207 circle overview

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

Annotations only declare safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world); the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: partial-failure semantics where a failed members fetch is reported in `warnings` while the rest still returns, and the contrasting hard failure when the contract RPC is unreachable. That distinction materially changes how an agent should handle a result.

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-loaded with the routing cue 'Start here', then purpose, alternatives, return shape, and failure behavior in a compact block with zero filler. Dense and slightly jargon-heavy (get_circle, get_params, membersSource), but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 description supplies the return shape ({contract, circleId, circle, params, members, membersSource, warnings}) and the numeric encoding, plus error vs partial-failure behavior. For a zero-required-parameter read tool, that covers everything an agent needs to call it and interpret 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 description coverage is 100%, so the two parameters are already fully documented, including the members_status read-API-only caveat. The description adds limited extra param meaning, though its note that amounts are strings in the smallest unit (6 decimals) clarifies the data domain the parameters operate over. Slightly above baseline because of that unit note.

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 concrete resource and composition: the circle's record and rules (get_circle, get_params) plus a page of members, and names the entry point with 'Start here'. The explicit contrast with x207_member_inspect and x207_epoch_report makes it distinguishable from siblings at a glance.

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?

Gives both when-to-use ('Start here') and when-not: use x207_member_inspect for a single member, x207_epoch_report for a single epoch. It also documents the data-source fork (read API GET /members vs contract view list_members when no read API is set), so the agent understands which path it will get.

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