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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits: results are limited to upcoming events, sorted nearest-first, and broken down per public vesting schedule. This goes meaningfully beyond the tool name itself, though it does not mention response shape or whether any data source caveats apply.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys scope, ordering, and output fields with no filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it states what data is returned, for which universe, and in what order. There is no output schema, but the description adequately covers return semantics.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is effectively complete and there is little for the description to add. The description still clarifies what the returned data represents, which is the relevant semantic context for a parameterless endpoint.

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 resource ('token unlock events for pool coins'), states the temporal scope ('upcoming'), and specifies output contents ('next unlock timestamp and token amount per public vesting schedule'). It is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling get_* tools, even without opening schemas.

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 context is clear: use this for upcoming token unlock data for pool coins. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but no sibling appears to cover token unlocks, so the omission is not significant.

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