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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that the tool measures deviation in bps for USDG and other stablecoins, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotations and provides the core behavioral context of what is reported.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the key metric. It contains no fluff or redundant information, front-loading the essential purpose. This is an ideal level of brevity for a simple tool.

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 simple nature (no parameters, read-only, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It tells the user what is being measured and in what unit. It could mention whether it's a current snapshot or historical, but that is a minor gap not essential for basic understanding.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no details to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It does add semantic value by specifying the unit (bps) and the scope (USDG and other stablecoins), which helps interpret any data returned.

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 precisely defines the tool's purpose: measuring deviation of USDG and other stablecoins from $1 parity in basis points. This is a specific metric with clear scope (stablecoins, depeg risk) that differentiates it from broader market tools. Despite lacking an explicit verb, the noun phrase effectively communicates the data resource.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need to assess stablecoin depeg risk or deviation from parity. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like oracle_deviation. The zero-parameter design simplifies choosing it, but exclusions are absent.

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