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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the specific list of returned fields, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the symbol is case-sensitive, whether it accepts names vs. symbols only, or what happens for unknown symbols.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a single required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The only minor gap is not specifying input format flexibility (e.g., case sensitivity or exact name matching), but this is a small omission given the schema example.

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 the 'symbol' parameter with an example ('BTC or Bitcoin'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata for a cryptocurrency'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (ID, rank, supply, max supply, VWAP, market cap, 24h volume). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assets-search or assets-top, which focus on discovery or ranking rather than a single asset's metadata.

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 for fetching metadata for a single cryptocurrency, which is clear from the singular resource and the required 'symbol' parameter. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like assets-compare or price-get, but the context signals and sibling names make the distinction reasonably inferable.

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