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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent; the description adds error behavior for unknown or Deprecated slugs and outlines the return payload (resource + recent_activity). The bare 'Returns (json)' is slightly ambiguous next to response_format's markdown default, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the when-to-use trigger, followed by return shape, error behavior, and an example. It is compact, though 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation and 'Returns (json)' could be phrased more carefully.

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 single-record lookup with no output schema, it covers purpose, prerequisite search step, return payload shape, error conditions, and safety behavior. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so slug, response_format, and include_activity are already documented with defaults and enums. The description adds only a concrete slug example and restates that activity includes releases/posts, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific use case: judging a single project (open source, maintenance, authors, supported features). 'Returns the full record by slug' names the resource and key, and it explicitly points to onchain_agent_search_resources for slug discovery, distinguishing it from the search sibling.

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?

'USE WHEN you need to judge one specific project' gives a clear trigger, and 'Find the slug with onchain_agent_search_resources first' provides the prerequisite and named alternative. It does not enumerate when-not cases for the other get_* siblings, but the single-project scope makes those exclusions reasonably inferable.

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