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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'returns' behavior but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or edge cases. The description is adequate but not rich, earning a baseline 3.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and data returned, followed by a sibling distinction. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description adequately covers what it does and returns, including a clear distinction from a sibling. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but given the low complexity and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use.

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% for the sole parameter 'symbol', with an enum and default value. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. Notably, the enum list in the schema conflicts slightly with the parameter description mentioning 'EURe, OUSG, USDY etc.' that are not in the enum, but this is a schema issue not addressed by the tool description.

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's purpose: 'Token-level reserve context for any RWA token — the issuer-near view' and enumerates specific data returned (token structure, custody, issuer LEI, etc.). It explicitly differentiates from sibling 'reserve_snapshot' by noting it 'Complements reserve_snapshot (asset-level) with token-specific details.'

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 by positioning the tool as complementary to reserve_snapshot, implying use when token-specific details are needed over asset-level data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like reserve_token_lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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