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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It lists output contents but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or is expensive. A read-only status is implied but not explicitly stated. Score 2 for insufficient behavioral disclosure beyond a simple list.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key output components. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. Score 5 for perfect 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It lists field names (e.g., 'secrets, venues, chain') but not their types or meanings. For a status tool of moderate complexity, this is adequate but not complete. Score 3 as it provides a minimum viable outline.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameters to describe. The description adds value by listing output fields, which is unnecessary for params but harmless. Score 4.

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 clearly states it provides 'full system status' and lists specific components (secrets, venues, chain, etc.). It implies aggregation of multiple status aspects, which distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like stocktoken_fees or stocktoken_price. However, it could explicitly differentiate from other status tools (e.g., stocktoken_access_status). Score 4 for clear verb+resource but slight ambiguity in differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are several status-specific tools (e.g., stocktoken_morpho_status, stocktoken_subscription_status), but the description does not mention when to prefer this comprehensive status over those. Score 2 for no usage context or exclusions.

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