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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fail-closed behavior ('unknown is never genuine') and the return categories. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is two sentences, both concise and informative. The first sentence states the purpose and outputs, the second adds critical context about the fraud use case and authoritative source. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the output categories but does not specify the return structure or differentiate between 'unsafe' and 'impersonation'. It covers the core purpose but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response format.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; it only implies that 'claimedIssuer' and 'claimedSymbol' are used for verification. No additional context or formatting details are provided.

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 clearly states the verb 'vet' and the resource 'asset', and specifies the outcome categories (genuine, impersonation, unsafe, unknown). It distinguishes from sibling tools like till_vet_meme and till_vet_agent by focusing on tokenized assets and issuer verification.

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 gives context on when to use (detecting impersonator tokens) and provides a usage hint ('source real addresses from issuer official docs'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context naturally differentiates.

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