HIP-4 asset id -> human label

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape ({labels: {assetId: label}}), which is important because no output schema exists. It does not mention the 100-item cap or error behavior, but that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence giving purpose and examples, followed by the return shape in one clause. No filler; every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the input semantics, output shape, and a reference point for usage — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning about id semantics — that ids like '#14730'/'#14731' encode YES/NO outcomes — which goes beyond the schema's bare format examples.

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 ('resolve') and resource (HIP-4 outcome asset ids -> readable labels) with concrete input/output examples ('#14730' (YES) -> 'Arsenal · Yes'). An agent can clearly distinguish it from siblings like flowscan_hip4_markets or flowscan_hip4_outcome.

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 (mapping ids to human labels, mirroring the address page's treatment of HIP-4 spot balances) but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. No routing away from sibling tools is provided.

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