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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies the operation as a read and notes an authorization requirement, which is useful, but it does not explain the authorization mechanism, rate limits, or any other operational constraints.

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 two short sentences with no wasted language, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the authorization note.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the basic operation and an authorization requirement. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could say more about what "custodian standing" means and what the caller should expect from the authorization requirement.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful source of complexity. The baseline score of 4 applies because there are no inputs to document or disambiguate.

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 and resource: "Read cross-chain custodian standing." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as extend_custody or grade_chain.

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 only usage guidance is "Requires Authorization," which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. It gives no explicit conditions for choosing this tool over its siblings or when not to use it.

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