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

Annotations only carry readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: a 3-distinct-tickers-per-rolling-hour free quota, repeats stay free, the fourth call returns BREADTH_LIMIT, and explicit-unavailable-reason semantics instead of silent failure. This is exactly the quota and error behavior an agent needs before spending a call.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before quota and edge-case behavior. Slightly packed with domain jargon (issuer-term evidence cells, Open Treasury Yield Basis) 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-value explanation and it does list the major payload components plus the BREADTH_LIMIT failure mode. It stops short of describing the shape of the ticker-list response or the exact unavailable-reason fields, leaving minor gaps.

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%, so both ticker and version are already documented, including the omit-ticker behavior and the version 1 vs 2 difference. The description restates the omitted-ticker case but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource — 'Returns the free frozen-contract state view for one tracked tokenized treasury' — and enumerates the payload contents (identity, yield basis result, evidence cells, deployments, dates). The singular 'one tracked' contrasts implicitly with the plural list sibling, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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 clear conditions: one ticker per call, omitted ticker returns only the ticker list, and hitting the fourth distinct ticker routes to the paid complete-snapshot path. It does not name that paid tool explicitly nor mention when to prefer compare_rwa_snapshots or get_rwa_history, so alternatives are only partially resolved.

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