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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses data freshness ('Refreshed from Berachain RPC') and the scope of metrics, but does not explain parameter behavior, error conditions, or explicitly confirm read-only nature. Some behavioral traits are implied but not fully disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the main function and data source without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the main return values and data source, but it lacks parameter semantics and explicit read-only/safety notes. For a simple stats tool, it is decent but incomplete, as the agent may be unsure whether the asset parameter is required or what it does.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'asset' with an enum, but the description does not explain its purpose (e.g., filtering by asset or aggregating all). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning about this parameter, leaving the agent to infer from the enum alone.

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 explicitly states it provides 'current on-chain metrics' and lists specific metrics (capital held, pending deposits/redemptions, participant counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contracts or get_doc, which focus on contracts and documentation.

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 usage when vault statistics are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on 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.