FREE Korra open/resolved calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it says results are returned as raw Korra JSON, that no x402 payment is involved, and warns to treat the payload as untrusted data rather than instructions. That last point is meaningful security context beyond the 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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with what the tool returns before the caveats. The disclaimers (not financial advice, untrusted data) each carry distinct value rather than padding.

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 optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what an agent needs: what comes back (raw Korra JSON), that no payment is required, and how to treat the response. Return shape details are absent, but that is acceptable given no output schema and a 'returns as-is' statement.

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% and the single optional asset parameter is already documented with the same letters+digits/max-12 constraint. The description restates that constraint without adding syntax, filtering, or default behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and verb: a free partner proxy returning Korra open calls plus recent hit/miss results. It clearly distinguishes itself from a generic news tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named siblings vedetta_korra-news and vedetta_korra-lean.

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 signals this is the free, no-x402 path, which loosely implies when to pick it, but it never states when to use it over the sibling Korra tools or what conditions make it inappropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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