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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is assessed but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or what the output format is.

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?

Two short sentences immediately front-load the purpose. There is no filler or redundancy, making the description appropriately concise.

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?

Tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not state what the response will contain or how results are structured. It is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves output behavior implicit.

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 single parameter `protocol` is fully described in the schema as 'Protocol name or slug' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly identifies tool as custody and counterparty risk assessment, mentioning SIFI status and concentration risk. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like market_liquidity, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative instructions are provided. The description implies usage when evaluating custody/counterparty risk, but does not reference related sibling tools such as significant_issuer or reserve_quality.

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