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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'Read-only, no transaction needed,' which is a key behavioral trait for a query tool. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple balance check, this is sufficient disclosure.

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 with no filler, the purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only note is immediately stated. Every word adds value.

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 simple query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns (shares and USDC value) and its read-only nature. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the 'agentAddress' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('agent's Forge vault balance') and specifies the details (shares and USDC value). It clearly differentiates from siblings like deposit, withdraw, and get_vault_stats by focusing on a per-agent balance check.

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 implies use for checking a balance and explicitly states it's read-only with no transaction needed. However, it doesn't mention when to prefer this over siblings like get_vault_stats or get_current_apy, or provide any exclusions. The usage context is clear but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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