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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value not in the annotations by disclosing the auth requirement and free tier, but says nothing about data freshness, whether the week is calendar- or rolling-based at boundaries, or result size 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?

A single sentence with the time window front-loaded, so it is not padded. But the middle clause is a dense run-on of undefined jargon, which costs more in comprehension than it saves in length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the auth prerequisite is stated. However, for a zero-required-parameter dashboard tool spanning several data concepts, the description leaves the agent unable to predict what the payload will contain.

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% and both parameters (cursor, detail enum) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about paging or how 'detail' changes payload size, so it neither compensates nor needs to.

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?

"Your last seven days" establishes a time window and a personal scope, but the object list is opaque: "every unusual time on them with the day-later move, record dots, alerts and questions as counts" is not decipherable to an agent that hasn't already used the tool. Sibling names like coin_brief and my_alerts are far more self-describing, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from them.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ("Needs a signed-in connection (free)"), which is useful but is not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over my_alerts, my_positions, coin_brief, or what_followed, all of which plausibly overlap with a weekly summary.

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