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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a safe read operation via 'Get' and adds the important scoping detail that the id must come from list_vaults, but it does not disclose return shape, error behavior, or any other side effects.

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?

One well-structured sentence with no filler. The key action and parameter source are front-loaded, and every element earns its place.

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 single-parameter getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what parameter to provide, and where that parameter comes from, leaving no essential gap for correct invocation.

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 beyond the schema by clarifying that the 'pool id' is the same as the `id` field returned by list_vaults, which prevents agents from confusing it with other vault identifiers.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single vault'), and the key selector ('pool id'), which distinguishes it from list_vaults and the other vault-related siblings. Referencing the `id` field from list_vaults anchors its purpose precisely.

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 clear usage context: call this when you need a single vault and have a pool id obtained from list_vaults. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus get_vault_history or get_vault_stats, but those are clearly different operations by name.

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