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

Annotations already establish read-only safety, but with no output schema the description's list of returned fields (pubkeys, balances, status, membership, chain addresses) and the 'current' qualifier meaningfully fill the gap. It still omits auth requirements, ordering, and whether inactive vaults are excluded, keeping it below 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and returned fields. The resource definition earns its place, though the final pagination sentence is largely redundant with the schema and could be trimmed.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, resource definition, and pagination. Missing details like default ordering or whether all vault states are included are minor but prevent a perfect score.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema with defaults and max values. The description's 'supports pagination with limit and offset' merely restates the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns current Asgard vaults') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not distinguish itself from sibling vault tools like get_vault, get_vault_pubkeys, or list_derived_pools, so it falls short of the sibling-aware 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite several overlapping vault tools (get_vault, get_vault_pubkeys, get_vault_solvency). The definition of Asgard vaults is descriptive background rather than routing guidance.

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