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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses 404 for unknown ids, 400 for invalid arguments before payment, 503 during refreshes, and that charging occurs only on a 200. It omits return shape or pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and is mostly waste-free. The payment point is repeated ('charged only for a 200' and 'charged only for a successful answer'), which is minor redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies strong operational context: error semantics, payment conditions, price, and incident categories. It stops short of explaining what an incident record contains, which leaves a small gap for a read tool.

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 the formal parameter docs are complete. The description adds real semantic context for the 'entity' parameter by noting that entity ids appear in dependency graphs, helping the agent know where to source valid values.

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 ('Labelled incidents') with concrete categories (exploits, oracle failures, depegs, TVL collapses) and domain scope (Base protocols and stablecoins). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_risk_events or get_protocol_risk, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Useful for a protocol or stablecoin track record before trusting it with funds.' That tells the agent when it is valuable, though it names no alternatives or exclusions.

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