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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It adds value by stating the addresses are 'verified' and that explorer links are included, scoping to Berachain Mainnet and specific contract types. It does not detail output structure or error behavior, but for a read-only getter, this is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core message ('Verified SukukFi contract addresses') and adds only essential details (network, contract types, explorer links). No word is wasted.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned and the supported assets. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., a list or map), but it is complete enough for most use cases.

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 in the schema, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description's reference to 'each accepted asset' implies no filtering or input is needed, aligning with the empty 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 clearly states the tool returns verified SukukFi contract addresses on Berachain Mainnet, naming the specific contracts (duPRT share token and vault proxies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_doc and get_vault_stats, which focus on documentation and statistics.

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 when contract addresses are needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons to alternative tools. Siblings like get_vault_terms are not mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

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