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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral cue, 'via the indexer,' but does not explain indexing lag, pagination behavior, or what response shape to expect.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. 'List vaults via the indexer' is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word 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?

Despite six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a large sibling namespace, the description provides only the bare action. An agent would need substantially more context about the filter structure, pagination semantics, response contents, and how 'via the indexer' affects results.

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. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, whose descriptions are terse ('Filter options', 'Pagination options', 'Offset'). It does not clarify how the nested params, filter, or pagination objects truly behave.

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 clear action and resource: 'List vaults via the indexer.' This distinguishes it from single-vault tools like peer_vault_show, but it does not differentiate it from similar list tools such as peer_market_vaults, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling list containing peer_market_vaults, peer_vault_show, and several indexer list tools, the description leaves the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.

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