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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: curated versioned set, constituents shown, coarse on sparse data, attention-only (no price), and free vs premium tiers. It also adds a disclaimer. This goes beyond the schema and gives useful expectations, though it does not detail authentication or rate limits.

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 concise and information-dense, front-loading the core question before providing details on parameters, output tiers, limitations, and disclaimer. Every sentence adds value with no fluff 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is quite complete: it covers the tool's purpose, parameter usage, output granularity, free/premium differences, data limitations, and disclaimers. The only gaps are the exact return format or JSON structure and explicit mapping of the `payment` parameter, but overall it provides a strong functional picture.

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 compensate. It effectively explains the `narrative` parameter (valid values and empty meaning), adds meaning to `payment` indirectly by describing free vs premium outputs, but leaves `session_token` entirely unexplained. The compensation is partial: one parameter is well documented, another partially, one not at all.

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 states a clear purpose: tracking attention trajectories for crypto narratives across curated baskets. It names the specific verb ('track') and resource (narrative baskets with explicit list), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on narrative-level attention, not individual tokens or market-wide metrics. The scope and output are made concrete.

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 gives explicit usage instructions for the `narrative` parameter ('Pass `narrative` for one basket, or leave empty for all ranked by velocity') and indicates when not to use it for price-related insights ('attention only (no price)'). It does not name direct alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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