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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the response envelope ('per-section provenance and degraded codes'), that results are ledger-indexed and live, and that the call is pure observation with no side effects. It does not explain why idempotentHint=false (time-varying live state), leaving one annotation gap unaddressed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned sections and closed by the boundary statement. The first sentence is a dense list but every enumerated section maps to real output content, so little is wasted; slightly tighter phrasing could improve readability.

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 does so by enumerating the snapshot sections and the provenance/degraded-code envelope. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the meaning of the degraded codes is the only unresolved detail.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no argument semantics because there are none to define.

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 names a specific resource (a composite, ledger-indexed snapshot of ASTEROID) and enumerates every section it returns: supply breakdown, AMM liquidity and trading fee, LP-lock accessibility, treasury escrows, and trust-line/holder counts. The 'composite' framing distinguishes it from the granular siblings (get_supply_state, get_liquidity_state, get_holder_distribution) without the agent needing to open schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance: 'not a quote, not a market evaluation and not transaction preparation,' which routes quote/prep needs toward siblings like get_swap_quote. It stops short of stating the positive case (use this when you need all sections in one call rather than several granular getters), so the guidance is clear but not fully symmetric.

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