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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state that the tool returns deviation and stability, indicating it is a read-only status check. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, rate limits, or data freshness details, which for a 'current' status tool would be useful context. No contradictions exist.

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 exceptionally concise, using only six words to convey the tool's purpose and core outputs. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, perfectly sized for a simple status query tool.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions the return concepts (deviation, stability) but omits details like exact format, units, or whether the status is time-bound. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 reflects that it works but leaves room for clarity.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'symbol' with a clear example (USDC, USDT), covering 100% of parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema suffices, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (current peg status) and specifies the key aspects returned (deviation, stability), distinguishing it from sibling peg_history which focuses on historical data. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less direct.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that peg_status is for current snapshots while peg_history covers trends, nor any other usage context. The user must infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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