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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that groups carry source and as_of, scores carry confidence, missing factors are listed under unassessed, and that ratings are opinions, not predictions or financial advice. This sets appropriate expectations about data provenance and limitations. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: content enumeration, structural conventions, and a disclaimer. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with no filler. Every clause adds value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it does: it lists the major fields/groups and describes metadata conventions (source, as_of, confidence, unassessed). This is enough for an agent to understand what it will receive. It could go further by noting the top-level shape or error behavior, but for a single-param retrieval tool this is largely complete.

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 single parameter `coin` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already explains the coin parameter's resolution behavior.

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 opens with 'The full v1 asset object' and enumerates the specific content groups (identity, market, health, risk, venues, market context), making the resource and scope unmistakable. This clearly separates it from narrower siblings like get_survival_rating or get_market_context, even without explicitly naming them.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. It never mentions sibling tools or conditions like 'if you need only health, use get_survival_rating'. Usage must be inferred solely from the word 'full' in the first sentence, which is not explicit enough.

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