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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description is not required to restate safety. It earns credit for adding two non-obvious behaviors: that each included member route burns its own quota, and that repeating identical inputs resumes a failed (503) Forensics run. Return shape is left to the output schema.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the composition/scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the quota and retry caveats. The 503-resume note is slightly abrupt but operationally valuable rather than padding.

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 an output schema present, the description is not obliged to describe return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It supplies the quota cost and failure-recovery behavior an agent needs, leaving only the meaning of chain/address and the tool's output nature unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially meets it. It loosely maps the two boolean flags to named features ('include Forensics or token security'), which adds real meaning, but chain and address are never explained. The enum on chain is self-documenting, yet address constraints and the required-pair semantics remain unaddressed.

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 verb 'Combine' plus 'exact-contract evidence' gives a rough sense of an aggregation tool, and naming Launch/Surge/Daily hints at which sibling sources are bundled. However, those source names are internal jargon that an agent cannot map confidently to get_alpha_launch, get_alpha_surge, or get_daily_picks, and the description never states what the tool actually produces (an asset research report). The purpose is implied rather than stated.

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 does convey composition semantics (which members are included by default, and that Forensics/token security are opt-in), which implies when to reach for this tool instead of calling the individual sources. But it never explicitly says when to prefer research_asset over get_forensics or check_token_security, nor when to use start_asset_research versus this tool.

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