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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool is read-only, that concentration is null rather than approximated when the scan is incomplete (a data-quality failure mode), that protocol/pool wallets are excluded, and that results are chain-derivable. These behavioral traits go well beyond what an empty schema provides.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by an enumeration of metrics, boundary conditions, and a safety trait. Every sentence adds a distinct fact with no filler or repetition.

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 aggregate tool with no output schema, the description covers what data is returned, how it is bounded (no addresses, no per-wallet amounts, protocol/pool exclusions), and how failures are represented (null concentration). An agent has everything needed to decide if this tool answers a holder-distribution question.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to explain and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the return shape instead, stating which aggregates are produced and what is deliberately omitted.

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 opens with a direct framing ("Who holds the token, in aggregate") and then enumerates the exact metrics returned: distinct holding wallets, day/week change, locking wallets and locks held, and supply concentration. It also draws a sharp boundary against siblings like get_supply by defining what is *not* included (addresses, per-wallet amounts, protocol wallets, pools). An agent can tell it apart from get_lock_tier without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly states the scope and exclusions (no addresses, no per-wallet amounts), which tells an agent what this tool is and is not for, and implicitly routes a user wanting holders' identities elsewhere. However, it does not name any sibling tool as an alternative for per-wallet or address-level queries, which falls short of a 5.

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