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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output shape (ranked candidates, reasons, URL) and important interpretive caveats ('never predictions, never financial advice' and 'Unscored is not Active'). It does not address staleness or the exact meaning of 'today's scored tier', but for a read-like discovery tool it is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the action and filters are front-loaded, the return value is stated, and the disclaimer earns its place by preventing misuse. Every sentence adds information.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the filter space and return type but leaves gaps: how ranking works, what 'reasons' look like, and how this tool relates to the many similar sibling discovery tools. It is sufficient for a basic call but not for confident selection among alternatives.

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 only 11%, so the description is the main source of parameter meaning. It maps most filter groups to parameters: band, health score range, market cap range, minimum turnover, maximum decline from peak, and minimum 30-day change. However, it omits 'limit' entirely and does not clarify score scale, inclusivity, or defaults, so compensation is strong but incomplete.

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 ('Find') and resource ('today's scored tier'), enumerates the filter dimensions, and names the return payload (ranked candidates with reasons and coin page URL). The semantic note 'Unscored is not Active' adds useful boundary information, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 a discovery/candidate-screening use case, but it does not state when to choose this over siblings like list_coins_by_band, search_coins, or get_comebacks. There is no when/when-not guidance or explicit alternative routing, only the band semantics note.

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