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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses refresh interval (~every 3h), data sources (mempool.space, production releases), and adds a structural-read disclaimer. This goes beyond the schema and provides useful behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state read-only nature.

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?

Well-structured: purpose statement, data details, and args section. The explanatory sentence about the causal link adds a bit of length but is informative. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Not overly verbose.

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?

Output schema is present, so return format is covered. Description covers data sources, refresh cadence, parameter semantics, and scope. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 has no description for 'ticker' (0% coverage), so the description compensates fully: it states the parameter is optional, enumerates allowed values (MARA/RIOT/CLSK), and explains behavior when omitted (all). This is clear and actionable.

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?

Clearly states it provides cross-asset intelligence on BTC miners, specifying metrics (production efficiency, hashprice-implied vs actual revenue capture) and target assets (MARA, RIOT, CLSK). The divergence flag purpose is explicit. This distinguishes it from generic asset tools and siblings like divergence_radar.

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 implies when to use it (for miner divergence analysis) but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it. It could have mentioned that broader asset comparisons are handled by compare_assets or divergence_radar. The context is clear but not explicit.

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