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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly declares the tool as read-only and requiring no authorization, which is key behavioral info. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but for a simple query this is acceptable.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and then detail the optional parameter. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's function: it lists the returned data fields and the effect of the optional parameter. This is complete for a one-parameter query tool.

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% with a clear description for the address parameter. The tool description adds further context, explaining that passing an address also queries LOVE/USDC balance and unrealized P&L, thus enriching the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 specifies '查询正和金库实时状态' (query real-time vault status) and lists key data points (NAV, total USDC, shares, premium). It clearly identifies the resource and action, and distinguishes from sibling tools which are for binding, actions, and routing.

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?

States '只读，无需任何授权' (read-only, no authorization required) and explains when to pass an address to get balance and P&L. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide.

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