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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (ES256K-referenced, content_hash, signed_at, verify_url) and data sources (live price data, RWA registry), offering meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic snapshot statement.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value—first stating what it does, second detailing the output format and use cases. No unnecessary verbosity.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explains key return fields (content_hash, signed_at, verify_url) and notes it is a single payload, giving agents a clear picture of the result. It doesn't cover errors or prerequisites, but for the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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 fully covers the symbol parameter with an enum and description, so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The phrase 'any asset' is slightly misleading given the restricted enum, but this is a minor issue.

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 tool creates a 'Full signed reserve evidence snapshot for any asset', combining live price data and RWA registry data into a signed payload. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reserve_gold or reserve_silver, which are asset-specific.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'for compliance, due diligence, and agent workflows'. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the enterprise-grade framing implies it's the comprehensive option among the reserve_* siblings.

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