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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful methodology context (published standard, four pillars, architecture-neutral, identical criteria across self-managed/collaborative/institutional), but says nothing about what the assessment returns, whether it is deterministic, or any operational constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition of the standard, then the pillars, then use cases and scope. It is one tight paragraph with little waste, though the pillar enumeration and neutrality clause could be marginally tighter.

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 one-optional-parameter assessment tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, method, and scope well. The main remaining gap is that, absent an output schema, it does not characterize the shape of the assessment result.

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% for the single optional 'platform' parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning and the omit-for-archetypes behavior. The description's architecture-neutral framing loosely corroborates the omit case but adds no new parameter syntax or value guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Apply the Custody Independence Standard') and immediately defines it as a published four-pillar test, naming the pillars. It also distinguishes scope ('compare custody architectures rather than brands'), which helps separate it from brand-level siblings like compare_custody_platforms.

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 concrete triggering questions ('how many hardware wallets do I need', 'is my multisig actually safe') and a comparison use case, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative sibling tool or stating when-not to use it.

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