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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'check peg status.' It does not disclose what a peg status comprises (deviation threshold, healthy/degraded flag), data freshness/staleness, or data source, all of which materially affect interpretation for a peg-monitoring tool.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter behavior trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup this is close to adequate, and the omit-for-all behavior is covered. But with no output schema, the description should characterize what 'peg status' returns (thresholds, units, staleness), which it leaves undefined.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already lists all seven supported symbols with documentation. The description adds only the optionality behavior (omit to fetch all), not new syntax or semantics, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented parameter is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check wrapped asset peg status') and grounds it with concrete examples (WBTC, wstETH). The wrapped-asset scope cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling get_stablecoin_peg without needing to name it explicitly.

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 explains the invocation choice for its own parameter ('provide a symbol... or omit it to get all tracked wrapped assets'), which is useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_stablecoin_peg or compare_oracle_deviation, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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