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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses server-side filtering, compact page behavior, pagination necessity, the meaning of risk_score/risk_adjusted_apr, and that not every vault is rated. No side effects are claimed, and nothing contradicts an annotation.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: scope, risk-field semantics, server-side filter/sort capabilities, the compact-page caveat, and cross-tool routing. It front-loads the verb and resource and packs a lot of guidance without rambling.

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 12-parameter list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, this description is unusually complete. It explains the dataset, the risk model, filtering/sorting/pagination semantics, the need to narrow results, and how to follow up with sibling tools using returned IDs. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: risk_band ranges A (safest) through F, risk_score has higher = safer, and risk_adjusted_apr is APR minus a score-derived penalty. These definitions directly affect how to use min_risk_score, risk_band, and the risk sort options.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List DeFi vaults pigi.finance tracks,' names the integrated protocols, and then explains the risk fields that make it different from a generic vault list. The closing sentence routes to get_vault/get_vault_history/get_vault_stats, so the tool's scope is distinct from its siblings.

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?

Provides clear context: how to filter, sort, paginate, and combine filters for a 'best low-risk USDC vault' query. It names the follow-up tools (get_vault_history, get_vault_stats, get_vault) but stops short of explicit exclusions such as 'use get_rates for APRs' or 'when not to use this tool.'

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