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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: 'attention only (no price)', 'coarse on sparse data', 'curated versioned set, constituents shown', and 'not financial advice'. These add transparency about what the tool does and does not provide. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or update frequency.

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 a single paragraph of moderate length. It packs essential information: purpose, parameter usage, subscription differences, and limitations. While dense, it avoids unnecessary words. It could benefit from bullet points for clarity, but it remains concise and front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (narrative tracking, multiple baskets, free/premium) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main points. It hints at output format: 'list + hottest' vs 'full trajectories + constituents'. However, it does not fully specify the output structure, data freshness, or how constituents are shown. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only explains the `narrative` parameter ('Pass `narrative` for one basket, or leave empty for all ranked by velocity'). The `payment` and `session_token` parameters are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them. This is a significant gap.

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 that the tool tracks the attention trajectory of crypto narratives across curated baskets. It lists specific basket names (defi, l1_l2, etc.), explains the optional `narrative` parameter, and distinguishes free vs premium outputs. This provides a specific verb+resource with clear scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use the tool: to see which narrative is heating up. It gives explicit guidance on the `narrative` parameter (pass for one basket, empty for all ranked by velocity) and mentions subscription tiers (free vs premium). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings like `marketsummary__get_buzz_score` or others, though the purpose implies differentiation.

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