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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the description adds useful scoping detail beyond that: only current generations, only deposit-taking vaults, and sizes do not represent total gage holdings. It also discloses returned fields and the lends/buysOnly distinction. It does not discuss pagination, caching, or authentication, but those are less central for this read-only listing 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?

The description is front-loaded with the scope and exclusions, and every sentence carries useful information. It is somewhat dense, especially the clause about lends being false and buysOnly true for a vault that buys running loans alone, but it avoids wasted wording.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it lists the key fields: manager, tokens, fees, size, free cash, share value, and link on gage.cash. It also explains important exclusions and why the reported sizes are not aggregate totals. It could be slightly more explicit about the response container shape, but it is otherwise complete for a no-parameter listing tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings and appropriately uses its space for output and scope context instead.

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 states a specific resource and scope: partner vaults that currently take deposits, in each current generation. It distinguishes this list from LP vaults by naming gage_lp_vaults and from withdraw-only replaced generations and earlier Earn strategies.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: for current deposit-taking Earn vaults, not LP vaults or replaced withdraw-only generations. It names the LP alternative explicitly, though it does not spell out a direct 'use this when' instruction or point to deposit-preparation siblings.

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