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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that results are paginated and include risk scores and APR, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention default sorting, whether results can be empty, or how pagination is controlled—especially notable because the schema has no page or cursor parameter.

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 the main action and key filters front-loaded. 'And more' is slightly vague but harmless. It is compact without wasting words, though it doesn't use structure like separate sentences for behavioral notes.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It mentions a paginated list but provides no output shape details beyond 'risk scores and APR,' and it doesn't explain how pagination works when the schema lacks a page parameter. An agent calling this tool has to guess at response structure and pagination behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It only restates filters generically ('chain, protocol, asset, risk tier, TVL'), which adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Search and filter DeFi vaults' by several specific criteria, and notes the result includes risk scores and APR. It is distinct from get_vault and get_market in intent, but it doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternative, so it doesn't quite earn a 5.

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 implies this is the general-purpose discovery tool for vaults, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use search_vaults versus siblings like find_safest_vaults, list_vaults_with_incidents, or compare_vaults. There are no stated exclusions or selection criteria.

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