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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered (and the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant). The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing what the response surfaces - vault holdings, LTV, current draw capacity, pending lending hold, and closing state - which is important since no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the reads in a natural order from holdings to line state. It is dense but every clause conveys a distinct returned field; only the redundant 'Read-only' tail adds nothing.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the main gap by enumerating what is returned. Sufficient for correct invocation, though it stops short of stating how fresh or chain-specific the values are and when a caller should prefer it over stock_assets.

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 description coverage is 100%, with agent_id fully documented in the schema including the ERC-8004 hint and an example. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Show') and a precisely scoped resource: the stock tokens behind a Priors agent's stock line on Robinhood Chain. The enumerated fields (token, amount, vault valuation, LTV, borrowRoom, lending hold, closing) let an agent distinguish it from siblings like stock_assets, request_borrow, and request_repay without opening any schema.

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?

Implied read-only inspection context is clear, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as stock_assets for the underlying asset list or request_borrow for acting on borrowRoom. An agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to the borrow/repay siblings.

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