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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description goes further by disclosing the derivation (daily snapshot time-series + change-event log), the suppression rule (passive score/liveness drift filtered out, high-signal only), the tone taxonomy, and the concrete event kinds. This is meaningful context an agent could not get from 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?

Front-loaded USE WHEN / NOT FOR / RETURNS / Example structure with zero filler; every sentence carries routing, behavioral, or return-shape information. Dense but not bloated.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the full return shape ({ scope, total, changes: [...] }) including field names and the tone enum. Combined with the routing and suppression details, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 days, slug, limit, and response_format fully. The description's guidance on omitting vs passing slug largely restates the schema's own slug description and adds no new syntax or constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('what has changed recently across crypto-agent tooling') plus a scoped variant (one project's history), and names the siblings it is not (get_changes, get_listing_history). An agent can distinguish this from every other change-related tool without opening a schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit USE WHEN clause, then a NOT FOR clause naming two concrete alternatives (onchain_agent_get_changes for local sync, onchain_agent_get_listing_history for daily check records/score series) and the condition that selects each. Nothing is left to inference.

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