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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful caveat: 'Impact is a keyword heuristic, not a judgement about the market.' This clarifies that the impact score is not a predictive market signal, which is valuable for correct interpretation of results. This goes beyond the annotations and enhances transparency.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, and the second provides an important caveat. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value.

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 read-only tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return values (headlines, impact score, assets) and adds the heuristic caveat. It does not specify the format or timeframe of 'recent,' but given the simplicity of the tool and the annotations covering safety, this is adequate. A minor gap is not explaining how the impact score relates to the minImpact filter, but that is implicit in the schema.

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 67% (asset and limit have descriptions; minImpact only has an enum). The description does not elaborate on any parameters, but the schema already documents them sufficiently. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra parameter context, so a 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 clearly states what the tool does: retrieve recent crypto headlines, each with an impact score and the assets they touch. The verb 'Recent' and the specific output details (impact score, assets) distinguish it from siblings like news_detect_assets, which likely focuses on asset detection rather than providing a curated headline list with impact scores.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools or conditions for selection, such as 'for asset-specific analysis use news_detect_assets.' The only implicit usage is that it provides recent headlines, but there is no contrast or exclusionary language.

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