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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior context by marking the content as static explanatory material rather than live data, and by flagging its neutral, non-advisory stance. It stops short of describing the shape or length of what comes back, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what the tool covers comes first, the disclaimer and sibling routing follow. The parenthetical tax-split list is dense but earns its place by previewing the payload; slightly tighter phrasing would reach a 5.

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 reference tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, trust properties, the non-advisory caveat, and redirection to live-data siblings. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret what it will get.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and no misleading parameter-like guidance is given.

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 names a specific resource (the $BOBAI token's value-accrual mechanics) and enumerates its contents: the 3% tax split across burns, burned-LP liquidity, creator share, and dated campaign slices, plus trust properties. It explicitly distances itself from siblings by saying live numbers belong to bobai_token_info, bobai_activity and bobai_smart_money.

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 states the use case plainly ('use it to explain how the token works, to a user or in a report') and names the three alternative tools for live figures. It also sets a boundary against misuse by declaring the content is 'NOT a buy recommendation', so an agent knows not to treat the output as financial advice.

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