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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'No API key needed' and 'FREE preview', but also states 'Price 0.01 USDC/query' which is internally contradictory. It does not disclose that the tool returns public metadata only, nor describe any limits or side effects beyond the session query cap. The description adds some context but is confusing and not transparent about behavior.

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 a long, promotional block with emojis, pricing, and repeated calls to action. It is not concise or front-loaded with the core purpose. It spends characters on 'Price 0.01 USDC/query' and 'max 20 queries/session' instead of stating what the tool does. The structure is cluttered and inefficient.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response looks like. It only says 'FREE preview' and provides sample questions, but does not mention that the output is limited to public metadata. It also leaves the pricing contradiction unresolved. The description is incomplete for an agent to know what to expect when calling it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds sample questions that illustrate possible values for the 'question' parameter, but does not explain the parameters themselves. Since the schema covers everything, the description provides marginal extra value, so baseline 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 says 'FREE preview' and mentions a specific listing ('cratewatch') and sample questions, but it never explicitly states what the tool does — e.g., that it returns a preview or sample data of a listing. It reads as marketing copy ('call this now', 'Try one of the sample questions now') rather than a clear verb+resource definition. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like data_session_query, other than implying it's free.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The text pushes immediate use ('call this now') without any condition or context. It does not mention when to prefer this over data_session_query or other data tools. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned.

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