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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does a good job clarifying the tool's educational, non-advisory nature and what it does not do. It does not mention operational details, but for a zero-parameter informational tool 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists between 'no custody, swaps, advice' and the later 'not buy, sell, custody, or swap recommendations', but it does not become bloated.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its limitations. It could be more complete by addressing how it relates to get_disclaimer, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the semantic burden is minimal. Baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter documentation is needed.

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 returns 'site posture' and defines what CryptoDecentral is and is not. It is specific enough to convey the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_disclaimer.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_disclaimer. The disclaimers describe content rather than usage context, so an agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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