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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the returned record — including the qualitative 'strengths and limitations' section — which is genuinely valuable given there is no output schema. It stops short of stating read-only safety, behavior on an unknown slug, or whether results are cached/stable, so it falls just short of fully discharging the burden.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the resource and its contents, the second carries only the usage routing. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy with the schema or title.

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 one required parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description compensates well by naming the return fields and the usage sequence, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Remaining gaps — error behavior for an invalid slug and confirmation that the call is a safe read — are minor but real.

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 the single 'slug' parameter is documented there with concrete examples ('unchained', 'coinbase', 'onramp'). The description adds no syntax or aliasing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 resource (full Proof of Custody record for one platform) and enumerates exactly what that record contains: overall score, per-category scores, custody model, fees, insurance position, strengths and limitations. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_custody_platforms or compare_custody_platforms without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit call sequence ('Use after search_custody_platforms') and an alternative trigger ('or when a specific provider is named'), so the agent knows both when this tool is the right follow-up and when it is not needed as a discovery step. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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