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

Annotations already mark readOnly/destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: governance-set rate vs utilisation, campaign incentive APR semantics, no Aave collateral or borrowing, and instant no-cooldown deposits/withdrawals. This goes well beyond the structured hints and gives agents a reliable model of the vault.

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 first sentence front-loads scope, and subsequent sentences add value rather than padding. It is longer than necessary for a simple read, but the extra context about APRs and collateral status is relevant and earned.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the important returned fields and explains the present/absent campaign APR fields, user-specific values, and non-obvious semantics. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret the response.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, but the description enriches 'user' by specifying what it adds (shares, GHO value, wallet balance, maxDeposit/maxWithdraw) and reinforces 'version' as v3-only. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Opens with 'v3 only, Ethereum only' and identifies the tool as the sGHO ERC-4626 vault reader, then lists exactly what it returns (targetRatePct, totalAssets, supplyCap, paused flag). This is a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from generic vault tools like get_vaults.

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?

Clear context on when to pass 'user' vs omit it and that it is v3-only, with an explicit scope constraint. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when to choose another tool, so not a full 5.

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