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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation that may return variable results. The description adds the 'aggregated intel' context, implying it synthesizes multiple data sources, but doesn't disclose specifics like whether it makes external network calls or how fresh the data is. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could add a bit more context about what 'aggregated intel' includes without becoming verbose.

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 research tool with annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is the undocumented mint parameter format and the lack of detail on what the research brief contains. Since there's no output schema, the description could do more to set expectations about the return value, but the 'aggregated intel' hint provides some guidance.

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 50%: the authCode parameter has a detailed description, but the mint parameter has none beyond its type. The description's 'for a mint' clarifies that mint is the target address, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., Solana address, base58) or whether it's required, though the schema marks it required. The description partially compensates for the missing mint documentation.

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 'Research brief for a mint (aggregated intel)' clearly identifies the tool as producing a research brief for a specific mint, with a parenthetical clarifying it aggregates intel. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like orbitx__orbitx_get_token or orbitx__orbitx_get_safety by focusing on a synthesized brief rather than raw data, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage: when you need a research brief for a mint, use this tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like orbitx__orbitx_get_token for raw token data. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for aggregated intel, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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