cryptbrew_how_it_works

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does imply a pure informational read with no side effects via the verb 'Explain'. However, it says nothing about the form or depth of the response (static doc text vs. generated summary), which would help an agent decide between this and cryptbrew_faq. A 3 reflects an implicit but adequate safety/behaviour signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, listing the covered topics immediately. Every word earns its place and nothing is buried.

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, zero-annotation conceptual explainer with no output schema, the description names the exact subject matter an agent needs to route correctly. The only missing piece is the boundary against the similar about/faq siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments the schema does not support.

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 (Explain) and enumerates the three concrete topics covered: invoicing, payment forwarding, and the non-custody model. It is clearer than a bare name restatement, but it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbour siblings such as cryptbrew_about and cryptbrew_faq, which plausibly cover overlapping conceptual ground.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus cryptbrew_about, cryptbrew_faq, or cryptbrew_pricing, all of which are plausible alternatives for a conceptual question. The agent must infer routing from topic names alone, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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