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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — no wallet/auth is required — which is not derivable from the annotations. It does not indicate whether values like APY/status are live or cached, nor touch on rate limits, so it adds only modest context.

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: the returned payload contents come first, the intent routing last. Dense but waste-free prose — every clause maps to a returned field. The long em-dash sentence is slightly heavy to parse, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value details need not be restated, and the description covers the remaining unknowns for a single-enum read tool: what is returned, which account variants yield extra fields, and that no wallet is needed. 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a fully enumerated `account` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by explaining that the rwa-basket/Stocks value returns a different payload shape (listed tokens, price sources, value window, weight rules, slippage caps, fee), which signals to the agent that output varies by enum value.

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 (one Mamo Account's mechanics) and enumerates its contents: intake, money flow/split, APY, status, reward tokens, docs/audits, plus Stocks-specific fields. An agent can tell this is a static+state configuration/details read rather than a listing or a balance query. It stops short of naming a contrasting sibling, so it is not a 5.

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?

Explicit trigger phrasing is supplied ("For 'how does this work?' and 'is it safe?'"), which tells the agent exactly which user intents route here. It also removes a common blocker by stating "Needs only `account`, no wallet" — implicitly steering away from wallet-scoped siblings like get_user_account. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so 4.

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