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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement (one-time wallet sign-in) and the capability boundary: that access 'cannot claim, sign, move funds or vote'. That is meaningful behavioral context, though it says nothing about caching, staleness, or failure when unsigned.

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 subject and scope, then a colon-delimited inventory of return fields, then the access caveat. Every clause carries content, though the single long sentence is dense and the second sentence could be tightened.

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, describing the returned quantities is the description's job and it does so thoroughly, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. The only gap is the absence of any routing hint against the many 'my'/'get' siblings, which matters given the crowded sibling list.

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 is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there is none to add; it implicitly confirms the wallet is derived from the signed-in session rather than passed in.

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 names a specific resource ('Your own $VAULT position') and enumerates the content returned: claimable amounts in gold, S&P 500 and Treasuries, share of holdings, locked amount, and lock boost. 'Your own' and 'the wallet you signed in with' scope it to the caller, which separates it from protocol-wide siblings like get_holder_distribution or get_treasury_stats, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 states a precondition ('Needs a one-time sign-in with your wallet'), which is useful usage context, but gives no guidance on when to reach for this versus near-neighbours such as get_my_claims or get_my_performance. Usage is implied by the overlap in return fields rather than stated.

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