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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that reports are 'parsed and structured,' but does not disclose read-only status, side effects, permissions, or any operational behavior such as data freshness or external calls.

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 concise sentence front-loaded with the main topic, followed by a list of key contents and a brief processing note. There is no waste.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the key fields and data source, which is sufficient for a basic understanding. However, it does not specify the return format/structure beyond 'parsed and structured,' and could be more explicit about what the output looks like.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter-level explanation. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter information is needed.

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 indicates the tool provides RLUSD transparency reports with specific contents (reserve ratios, outstanding units, reserve values) from Standard Custody. It is explicit about the resource and data scope, but lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'returns') and does not differentiate from sibling RLUSD tools.

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 usage when CPA-attested transparency report data is needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, especially given the many RLUSD-specific sibling tools.

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