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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses data provenance ('independent scores', 'published data with the methodology attached') and disclaims recommendation ('not a recommendation'), plus the scoring model and platform coverage. It omits refresh cadence, auth needs, and return/pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is before moving to coverage, usage, and the caveat. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description conveys what is returned (published data plus methodology) and how it can be used. It is largely complete; only pagination/limit behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect meaning (category coverage list, 'list top-scored' implying an omitted query); 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 verb+resource: searching Proof of Custody's published scores for bitcoin/crypto custody platforms, with scope (90+ platforms, 0-100 six-category scoring). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling compare_custody_platforms, which it partly overlaps with via 'use to compare custody options'.

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 three concrete usage contexts: compare custody options, read a named provider's published score and custody model, or list top-scored platforms. This is clear context, though it names no explicit alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition (e.g., vs. compare_custody_platforms or get_custody_platform).

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