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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it updates hourly from six institutional data sources and returns specific output components including the compliance-adjusted settlement fee percentage. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear understanding of data freshness and output scope.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return values, and data sources/use case. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy.

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 read tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, how often data updates, where data originates, and why it is used (compliance). No critical information is missing.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage (the single 'address' parameter is fully described). The description's mention of 'for a wallet address or the protocol default' adds marginal value by contextualizing the optionality, but it does not introduce any new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a live ESG-denominated counterparty risk score for a wallet address or protocol default. The verb (Get), resource (counterparty risk score), and scope (wallet address or default) are specific, and the detail about returning individual E/S/G scores, composite average, and fee percentage distinguishes it from sibling ESG tools like esg.batch, esg.portfolio, and esg.trend.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, noting it is required for EU SFDR Principal Adverse Impact reporting and CSRD financed emissions disclosure. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the compliance use case is a strong implicit guideline.

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