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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: error codes (404, 400, 503), refresh behavior, payment model ($0.02 USDC via x402), and charging only on successful 200 responses. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, though the 'get' prefix implies it.

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 purpose and usage, then covers errors and payment. It is mostly efficient, but contains redundancy: the charging condition ('charged only for a 200' and 'charged only for a successful answer') is repeated, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned: recent risk events with severity, covering several event types. It also covers error handling and payment, but lacks detail on the exact response structure (e.g., field names, pagination), which an agent might need for full context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a hint about 'entity ids appear in dependency graphs' and mentions 'severity' in passing; it does not supplement parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('risk events') and lists concrete event types (TVL drops, depegs, exploits, APY moves, Morpho vault setting changes) with severity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_incidents or get_protocol_risk, leaving the agent to 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?

The description gives a clear usage context: 'Useful for monitoring positions or screening protocols for recent trouble.' It does not name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficiently informative for an agent to decide.

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