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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond them: the vault is legacy, it is withdraw-only from a specific date, and the response includes rewards ready to claim. It does not disclose pagination or empty-result behavior, hence not a 5.

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?

One densely packed sentence with the identity of the resource first, then the qualifying constraint, then the returned contents. No filler and nothing 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (value, tokens, rewards ready) and flags the vault's withdraw-only state. Complete enough to call correctly; only the absence of any empty/zero-position or pagination note keeps it from a 5.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage — the schema already documents the address format and that the wallet both signs and owns the positions. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads a wallet's remaining positions in Panda's OLD vault, and the parenthetical 'withdraw-only since 2026-10-04' differentiates it from the generic get_wallet_positions sibling. An agent can tell this is the legacy-vault read path without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'still has in ... OLD vault' and 'withdraw-only' signal the legacy-migration context, but the description never says when to call this instead of get_wallet_positions or that build_old_vault_migrate/build_old_vault_withdraw are the follow-up actions. The agent must infer the routing.

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