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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses result ordering (largest first), truncation of long lists with an items_total counter, conditional output for custom-plan callers, and the error condition for unrated ids. It does not state read-only/auth requirements, but for a read endpoint the disclosed behavior is unusually rich.

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-loads the core purpose, then layers output fields, truncation, plan-dependent extras, and the error case. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the middle clause about vault fields is slightly overloaded but readable.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, how it is ordered, how it is truncated, how custom-plan callers differ, and what constitutes an invalid call. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 adds meaning for node_id by requiring it to be a rated protocol id drawn from list_protocols. It does not explain chain_id's scoping effect in prose, but it adds real constraint semantics beyond the schema.

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 (one protocol node's cumulative rating) and explicitly names the contributing vaults and their fields, so it is distinguishable from list_protocols and get_vault without opening schemas. It also ties itself to list_protocols as the upstream id source.

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 clear direction on where ids come from ('take ids from list_protocols') and states the when-not case (a non-rated node such as a curator is an error). It does not contrast itself against get_vault or get_vault_stats, but the routing context is otherwise clear.

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