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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description still adds real value beyond them: tier gating (summary on Free; Pro adds backing, domicile, redemption, fees, yield mechanics and source URLs) and the crucial 'Null means not stated by the source' semantic.

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?

A single dense paragraph with no wasted clauses; the return-shape information is front-loaded after the purpose statement. Slightly cramped, but every clause carries information.

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 handles the return burden by enumerating the fields available at each tier and the null convention. Missing only things like whether a null/missing symbol errors or whether results are cached.

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% with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by naming the supported symbols (BUIDL, USYC, USDY, OUSG, USTB, TBILL, STBT, BENJI), which tells the agent the valid input domain in a way the bare schema does not.

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 verb+resource: hand-curated issuer terms for a tokenized treasury token, and implicitly distinguishes itself from get_rwa_asset / list_rwa_yields by scoping to issuer-level terms. The coverage list of tickers makes the domain concrete.

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?

Usage is implied — call it with a symbol to get that token's curated terms — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. siblings like get_rwa_asset or compare_yield_to_tokenized_treasuries, and no stated prerequisites.

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