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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the privacy policy (ratio only, never absolute reserve or supply, citing decision 28) and the 503 failure mode when Obsidian Cherry is unconfigured. This is meaningful operational context the annotations do not carry.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating exactly the returned fields, with the error condition appended. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields (redeem price, buy price, reserve ratio, floor price, shortfall status) and the 503 condition. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit routing relative to obsidian_quote.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the schema needs no compensation.

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 (Read) and resource (Obsidian Cherry's current on-chain state) and enumerates the concrete data points returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling obsidian_quote, so an agent must infer which of the two to call for state vs. pricing.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obsidian_quote, nor when-not to use it. Usage is only implied by the read verb; no exclusions or routing guidance are provided.

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