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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the 16-factor structure, the multiplicative exploit-history modifier, the three weakest factors, the found:false unscored case, and the explicit non-recomputation guarantee.

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 core 'Why…' framing, and the dense factor inventory is informative rather than filler. Slightly clause-heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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 compensates by spelling out the return shape (factors, sub-scores, weights, weakest three) and the unscored fallback. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (address, chainId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('explain') and resource ('vault score'), and details exactly what is returned: all 16 factors grouped by pillar with sub-score, weight, raw input and label. An agent can distinguish this from get_vault_score (the score itself) without opening either 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?

Gives useful context ('exactly what the engine computed at scoredAt, not a recomputation' and 'found:false when unscored'), which implies when the breakdown is authoritative, but never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer get_vault_score or compare_vaults. 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.