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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the data source (hourly EAS attestations on Base), the measurement window (24 days), statistical details (Spearman -0.04 over 177 spells), the censoring flag for unobserved lead changes, and that results are observed history, never forecasts. It also notes the outputs are recomputable from public attestation UIDs.

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 long but structured and information-dense; every sentence contributes meaningful context about methodology or return values. It is front-loaded with the core output, followed by empirical examples and caveats. Slightly verbose, but justified by the tool's analytical complexity.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully explains what results are returned (median duration, survival rates, rotation stats, chasing value), how they are computed, and important limitations (censoring, floor values, no forecasting). It also mentions sample sizes and verifiability, making it exceptionally complete for a complex analytical tool.

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 100% with the single enum parameter already described in the schema. The description adds illustrative examples of the three assets (WETH, ETH_STAKING, USDC) but does not provide additional parameter-level detail or syntax, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb+resource: it measures how long the service's own leadership calls actually hold, listing concrete outputs like median duration, survival rates at 6/24/72h, rotation stats, and value per $10k. It clearly distinguishes this persistence analysis from sibling tools that focus on exit capacity, rate sensitivity, shared exposure, etc.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, such as answering empirically whether a wider lead lasts longer and giving examples of asset-specific behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of a full 5.

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