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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: tier-dependent behavior (Keyless returns top situations with trimmed evidence, Starter returns all with full evidence), the three-stage lifecycle, and the include_resolved Pro capability. This is valuable context not present in the annotations.

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 dense but efficient: three sentences cover what a situation is, when to use the tool, and how access tiers change behavior. It is front-loaded with the core concept and each sentence contributes useful information.

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?

With an output schema present, the return structure is already documented. The description fills the remaining gaps: stage semantics, evidence/headline/price-move composition, tier-specific output differences, and the resolved-inclusion behavior. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some context for include_resolved and implies coin filtering through the use-case examples, but it does not significantly enhance the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 defines what the tool reports: live market situations organized by coin, lane, and stage with evidence, headline, and price move. The use-case examples like 'what is going on with SOL' and 'anything building on my coins' make its purpose concrete and distinguish it from generic market snapshot tools.

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 gives explicit use cases: checking what is happening with a coin, seeing developing situations, and monitoring coins the user cares about. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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