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

With no annotations the description carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the tool is a read that returns per-counterparty intelligence and, notably, 'Nothing is logged about the names passed in,' a real privacy assurance. It does not address auth requirements or rate limits, leaving some behavioral ground uncovered.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending on the privacy note. The middle sentence is a dense run-on enumerating five return fields, which is informative but heavy; a tighter list would read better without losing content.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain returns — and it does, enumerating custody model, SPOF, incidents, hardware rubric status, and corrections. Combined with the input-type taxonomy and privacy statement, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding what 'names' accepts — exchanges, custodians, ETFs, IRA providers, hardware wallets — a taxonomy beyond the schema's examples, and frames 'since' as a change window, which reinforces its documented default. This is useful clarification rather than mere repetition.

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 (a holder's counterparties) and enumerates the exact return payload — custody model, single point of failure, registry incidents, hardware rubric status, and score changes since a date. This is clearly a batch monitoring tool, implicitly distinct from single-lookup siblings like get_custody_platform. It never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete use cases — 'anything I should know about where I hold bitcoin' and scheduled checks — which tell the agent when this tool is the right call. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer get_custody_platform for a single counterparty), so it lacks the routing precision of a 5.

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