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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint by disclosing price (5 USDC per call over x402), terms URL, attribution requirements, separation of continuous access/change notices/customer-facing use, and business/professional-use restrictions. These are material behavioral and access constraints an agent would otherwise not know.

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 purpose and included fields, then proceeds to licensing and pricing. It is dense but largely earns its length by covering scope, return contents, and access terms without obvious filler.

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?

For a paid read-only snapshot with no output schema, the description identifies the record count, enumerates key returned fields, notes equivalence to the free instrument view, and specifies price, terms, and usage restrictions. This gives an agent enough context to call it correctly and understand the commercial constraints.

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 is only one optional parameter, version, and the schema provides 100% description coverage including the distinction between version 1 and 2. The tool description adds no parameter details, but this is acceptable because the schema fully documents the sole parameter.

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 resource and scope: a complete evidence snapshot for 13 tokenized treasury funds, with a long list of included data fields. It clearly distinguishes itself as an all-instruments snapshot, though it does not explicitly name or compare against the singular get_rwa_instrument sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by 'complete evidence snapshot for 13 tokenized treasury funds' and 'same records as the free instrument view,' which suggests when this all-in-one view is appropriate. It also states licensing/use restrictions, but does not explicitly say when to choose this over get_rwa_instrument, get_rwa_yields, or comparison siblings.

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