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

The 'Read' verb aligns with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the scope 'delegated deposit pair,' but does not disclose whether the rate is live, cached, or computed, nor behavior for missing identifiers. The annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core operation is immediately clear.

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?

The tool has five optional parameters, nested params, and no output schema, yet the description gives no indication of which identifiers are necessary to specify a delegated deposit pair. The schema covers field meanings but not how the parameters combine in practice.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description does not add semantic detail beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('effective rate for a delegated deposit pair'), which clearly identifies the operation. It is distinct from rate-management siblings like peer_vault_manual_rate_updates and peer_vault_oracle_config_updates.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as peer_vault_manager_fee or peer_vault_manual_rate_updates. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions stated.

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