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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the exact scoring formula (0.6 own rating + 0.4 TVL-weighted mean of vault scores), the band scale A..F, the 0-100 direction (higher = safer), and that chain_id narrows vaults rather than the protocol term. It omits auth, rate limits, pagination, and update cadence of ratings.

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?

Dense but mostly front-loaded: the purpose and formula come first, with the node-id examples and chain_id caveat following. The node-example list is a little long, but each clause carries semantic content rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return values, and it does — defining score, its range and direction, and the band thresholds. It stops short of describing the record shape or how many nodes are returned, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool 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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is already met. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining chain_id's semantic effect — it filters which vaults contribute to the aggregate, not which protocol nodes appear — which the schema's format-only description does not convey.

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 and resource — returns pigi's cumulative rating for every rated protocol node in one call — and explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_protocol by noting node ids are for use with that tool. An agent can distinguish this bulk-listing tool from the single-node tool without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'in one call' and the pointer to get_protocol imply when to use this versus the single-node alternative, and the chain_id caveat explains when the parameter changes scope. There is no explicit 'do not use when' statement, but the routing context is clear.

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