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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, etc.), the description adds crucial behavioral context: that advertised APRs are display-only and not guaranteed earnings, and that depositing and staking are separate steps. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of what the tool returns and its limitations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the most important aspect (staking status). Each sentence adds distinct information (position contents, staking significance, APR labeling, default, and access). It is slightly verbose but not wasteful; a minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing substance.

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?

With an output schema present, the return format is already defined. The description covers inputs (optional vault and address), the key output dimensions (shares, share, composition, staking), and an important caveat about APR display. It also notes keyless read-only access. Nothing essential for a read-only inspection tool is missing.

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 input schema already fully documents both optional parameters with defaults and descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats the default vault name but adds no new parameter-level detail, such as format constraints or usage notes, so it adds minimal semantic value beyond the 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's purpose: to report an ICHI single-sided vault position on Hydrex, including shares held, share of the vault, token composition, and crucially whether shares are staked. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hydrex_position by highlighting the staking status as the key output, which is likely unique to this tool.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to know if shares are actually earning, i.e., staked) by emphasizing that unstaked shares earn no APR. It also mentions the default vault. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as pointing to hydrex_position for non-staking vault details.

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