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 data provenance (issuer's own tally), units, the assurance limitation, and directs verification to a sibling tool. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or exact output shape, but these are less critical for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The Korean duplicate is quick and relevant for the stated locale, and the important caveat about auditor assurance appears early rather than buried.

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?

This is a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, and the description covers its result contents, units, provenance, limitations, and verification path. There is nothing an agent needs to call it correctly that is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description still adds semantic context by listing the fields an agent should expect in the result, which is more useful than an empty schema alone.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('reserve'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: custody gold weight in grams and troy ounces, on-chain total supply, and mintable allowance. It also distinguishes this tool from get_attestation by noting this is the issuer's own tally, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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 explicitly marks this as the issuer's own KorDA tally and advises verifying supply on-chain via get_attestation.contracts, and it warns that auditor assurance only extends to get_attestation.asOf. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-alternative guidance.

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