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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: depositing and staking are separate steps, unstaked shares earn no APR, advertised APRs are display-only, and the tool is free and keyless. These details go beyond the structured annotations and clarify important behavioral nuances.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key staking caveat, which is good. However, the final sentence ('Free, keyless, read-only. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.') is redundant and repeats information already implied by the readOnlyHint annotation, slightly diluting 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?

Given the tool's complexity (staking status, vault composition), the presence of a full output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the critical staking distinction and APR caveat. It does not describe return values, but the output schema handles that.

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 100% and both parameters are optional with clear descriptions. The description reiterates the default vault and the omit-address behavior, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific resource (ICHI single-sided vault position on Hydrex) and enumerates what it returns: shares held, share of vault, token composition, and staking status. It implicitly distinguishes itself from a plain position tool by emphasizing staking, but does not explicitly name a sibling tool to route against.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is useful: checking whether vault shares are actually staked and earning. It also states default behavior (kVCM/USDC vault) and how to inspect one's own position (omit address). No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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