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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the vault payload contains, but does not explain the unusual idempotentHint=false signal, failure behavior, or any auth requirements.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the returned fields listed as a tight clause. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned vault contents, which is exactly the burden it must carry here. It stops short of noting lookup-failure behavior or how routers/chain addresses are structured, but an agent can call it confidently.

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 coverage is 100% and the single pubkey parameter is fully documented with its thorpub1 prefix. The description only restates 'by its public key', adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource ('Returns a specific vault by its public key') and even enumerates the returned facets (coin balances, status, membership, routers, chain addresses). It implicitly contrasts with sibling list tools such as list_asgard_vaults, but never names an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_vault_pubkeys, get_vault_solvency, or list_asgard_vaults, nor any prerequisite or error condition (e.g., unknown pubkey). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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