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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the API-key entitlement requirement, warns that a missing assessment should not be read as zero, and clarifies that 'verified' is an API assertion rather than independent trust-root verification. That last point is a genuinely non-obvious trust caveat.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence adds a distinct, load-bearing caveat (case sensitivity, missing≠zero, API key, verified semantics). No filler or repetition.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it names both returned fields and the trust caveat around 'verified'. It stops short of describing response shape or error/absence behavior beyond the 'missing is not zero' note, but it is sufficient to call 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 50%: the identifier field is self-documented (including case preservation, which the description repeats), but the network enum has no description. The description names the five ledger families but doesn't map them to the enum values or explain the exact identifier format, so it only partially compensates.

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 (get) and two concrete outputs (current effective score and signed reviewed base score) scoped to five named ledgers. It is clearly distinguishable from get_native_asset_financials and explain_risk_score by its score-focused output, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

'Preserve identifier case' and 'A missing assessment is not a zero score' give operational guidance on how to call and interpret results. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus explain_risk_score or get_native_asset_financials, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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