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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the implicit wallet scoping (no address parameter) and the shared sign-in requirement with get_my_vault, plus the aggregate nature of the response — real behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

One sentence with the subject and scope front-loaded and the returned fields packed into a tight list; no filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause conveys new information.

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 describe the return contents — and it does so exhaustively (count, totals, averages, lock-boost count, first/latest/largest claim). Combined with the stated auth context, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description still clarifies that scoping comes from the signed-in wallet rather than any input, which is the only semantic an agent could otherwise misread.

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 specific verb+resource ('claim history in $VAULT') and immediately scopes it to 'the wallet you signed in with', then enumerates exactly what the record contains (count, total/average value at claim time, lock boost inclusions, first/latest/largest). An agent can distinguish it from get_my_vault or verify_claim without opening any schema.

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?

It supplies a real prerequisite ('same sign-in as get_my_vault') and flags the operation as read-only, which helps the agent know the required auth context. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings that also touch claims (e.g. verify_claim, get_my_performance), so usage is implied rather than routed.

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