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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does add context: the selection logic, the liquidity check, and a disclaimer that ratings are opinions, not predictions or financial advice. However, it does not describe output shape, ordering, pagination, or any operational constraints, leaving part of the behavioral burden unmet.

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 compact: the first sentence front-loads the core screening criteria, and the second adds a useful disclaimer. 'The recovery half of the story' is slightly vague but adds interpretive context without bloat.

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 list-returning tool with one self-documenting parameter, the criteria are described sufficiently for basic invocation. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the returned data contains, and the lack of sibling usage guidance makes the surrounding context incomplete for an agent choosing among many coin-related tools.

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 provides type, default, min, and max for the single limit parameter, but no description text, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the limit parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema description. The name 'limit' and its numeric bounds make its meaning partly inferable, which keeps this above 1.

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 specifies a concrete, verifiable screening criterion: coins down 60%+ from ATH, outrunning Bitcoin over 30 days, with turnover as a liquidity filter. This clearly identifies what the tool returns. It lacks an explicit action verb and does not differentiate from siblings by name, but the criteria are specific enough to separate it from get_movers and get_survival_rating.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_movers, get_survival_rating, or coingraph_evaluate. The phrase 'the recovery half of the story' hints at a complementary role, but it never names an alternative or states a when-to/when-not-to condition.

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