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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is a per-month unlock table computed from cliff plus linear vesting, but says nothing about determinism, rounding, or edge cases such as zero cliff or 100% TGE unlock.

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 leads with the deliverable (month-by-month unlock table) and then names the inputs driving it. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it is terse enough to feel like a fragment rather than a complete sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it only says 'month-by-month unlock table' without columns or granularity. Combined with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and an unexplained required 'tokens' field, an agent lacks enough to call this correctly in all cases.

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 carries the full burden, and it only loosely gestures at three of the five parameters (TGE unlock %, cliff, vesting months). The required 'tokens' parameter and 'label' are never explained, and no units, defaults, ranges, or whether the cliff month counts toward the total are given.

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 names a specific output (a month-by-month unlock table) and the exact resource it operates on (one allocation), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling design_tokenomics, so the agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus design_tokenomics, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only weakly implied by 'for one allocation', which hints at per-allocation scope but gives no routing guidance.

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