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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the screening/ranking nature and the category taxonomy, which is consistent with a read operation and does not contradict the annotations. It doesn't disclose extra behavioral traits like pagination, freshness, or result ordering, but with annotations present, 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?

One 13-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key discriminator ('by category'), with a parenthetical that earns its place by enumerating valid inputs. There is zero filler or restatement of the title.

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 5-param tool with no output schema, the description leaves return format, sorting behavior, and interval semantics unexplained. However, the required parameter's domain is largely spelled out, the annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior, and the remaining params carry defaults. Adequate for a straightforward screen tool, but thin at the edges.

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 only 20% (just authCode), so the description must compensate. It adds direct value for the required 'type' parameter by enumerating several of its enum values (trending, new, runners, graduating, kol, 'etc.' covers the rest). It adds nothing for chain, limit, or interval, though those are largely self-explanatory with defaults. Partial compensation for the critical param only.

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+resource ('screen/rank tokens') and enumerates the categories (trending, new, runners, graduating, kol), which matches the required 'type' parameter's domain. This makes the operation clear and immediately actionable. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly name any sibling it is not (e.g., crypto_scan or get_signals could plausibly overlap).

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?

Usage is implied through the enumerated categories: an agent can infer this tool is for pulling a ranked token list for a specific category like 'trending' or 'new'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no sibling is referenced, so the agent must infer fit from context alone.

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