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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral details: it returns a full page object, returns an error for unknown slugs, and documents the content structure. There is minor ambiguity around the response_format default (markdown) versus the description's 'Returns (json)' phrasing, but no direct contradiction with 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 usage trigger and stays reasonably compact while covering purpose, return structure, slug discovery, error behavior, and an example. Minor redundancy exists ('Read-only' repeats the annotation, and the 'Returns (json)' line could be clearer), but overall every section earns its place.

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 read-only wiki lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the page contains, how to find slugs, what errors to expect, and the response format option. The small ambiguity about markdown versus JSON output prevents a perfect score.

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 the schema already documents both parameters and the default. The description adds an example slug and notes error behavior for unknown slugs, which adds some semantics, but it does not substantially expand on what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('crypto-agent concept'), lists concrete examples like x402 and ERC-8004, and enumerates the returned wiki page sections. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing users to onchain_agent_list_wiki_pages for finding slugs.

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 includes explicit 'USE WHEN' triggers and tells users to use onchain_agent_list_wiki_pages to find slugs. It could be stronger in naming sibling alternatives like get_resource or search_agents, but it provides enough context for an agent to select this tool over the list/search siblings.

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