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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: per-call cost (0.005 credits), an anonymous access tier (25 calls/day per address with no credentials), and the underlying endpoint. Pricing and rate-limit disclosure are exactly the kind of traits annotations do not carry.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource front-loaded, followed by a compact parenthetical carrying endpoint, cost, and access tier. No filler, and the most important identification comes first.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to filter, the cost, and the auth/rate-limit posture. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail, which is a meaningful but not fatal omission for a two-parameter call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It notes that filtering is available by style but never explains the five enum values or what 'limit' controls (max 200, default 100), leaving both parameters under-specified.

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 states a specific resource ('60 hand-picked institutional investors', a curated guru roster) and its scope, so an agent knows this returns a collection rather than a single record. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the singular 'guru' sibling, but the roster framing implies the list form.

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 only usage guidance is 'Filter by style.' There is no statement of when to use this list versus 'guru', 'guru_moves', 'guru_portfolio', or the smart_money_* siblings, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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