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

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond those: it reads live allocation, reports specific risk verdicts, requires no wallet/API key, and explains cost/free-tier behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the use case but is longer than necessary. It repeats 'Required input: vault' and includes promotional/legal phrasing, though the structure remains readable.

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 one required parameter, high schema coverage, a present output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining operational essentials: data source, verdict types, chain, pricing, auth requirements, and cost model. Nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the only parameter, vault, described as 'MetaMorpho vault address.' The description repeats that vault is required but provides no additional format, chain, or normalization details 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 clearly states the tool reads a MetaMorpho vault's live allocation and returns a diversified/concentrated/control_risk verdict, with a clear question framing the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling risk tools like morpho_health or morpho_liquidatable.

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 gives clear usage context: 'the read before parking funds in a yield vault.' It does not mention exclusions or point to alternative tools, but the intended moment of use is explicit.

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