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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, read-only guarantees, authentication requirements, or output characteristics. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but this is not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral context is given.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence and a parameter line. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word serves a purpose. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces the score, but for what it does include, it is efficiently structured.

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?

Although an output schema exists (which lessens the need to describe return values), the description lacks crucial context: no usage guidance, no parameter depth, and no behavioral transparency. For a one-parameter tool, it is minimal but leaves the agent with little practical understanding of how to use it correctly or interpret results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add that 'did' is 'The agent's DID', which gives a minimal semantic hint beyond the schema's 'Did' label, but it does not explain what a DID is, its format, or how it is used. This is barely more than a restatement of the parameter name, providing marginal added value.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('USDC deposit history') for an agent, making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like moltrust_deposit_info, but the specificity of 'USDC deposit history' is enough for a basic understanding.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as moltrust_deposit_info or other history-related tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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