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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the immutable contract, the founder check-in condition, the 28-day timeout, the permanent public-faucet redirection, the irreversibility ('nobody can switch it off'), and the return contents. It also includes the exact getAccountInfo call for independent verification. This is exemplary transparency for a read-only state tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the mechanism, the failure condition, the consequence, the irreversibility, the return values, and the verification call. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs a large amount of decision-relevant information into a compact block.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what triggers the fallback, what the return values are, and how to independently verify them. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it correctly or interpret its results.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the returned data means (days remaining, split, lifetime accounting) and how to verify it. A baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate, and the description exceeds it by clarifying the semantics of the output fields.

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 specific verb ('read'), a resource ('vault'), and a precise scope ('perpetual dead-man switch, weekly drip, immutable contract'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like agent_vault_status and agent_radio by naming the exact mechanism and the public-faucet fallback. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening any 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?

The description implies when to use it: to check the vault's dead-man switch status, days remaining, split, and lifetime accounting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the mechanism and the included verification call make the context clear. A brief 'use this to verify vault state' would have made it explicit, but the context is strong enough.

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