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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the core behavior: continuous backend evaluation, webhook POST on firing, and a public https URL requirement. It also mentions 'Descriptive market data only' as a limitation. However, it omits details like whether alerts are one-time or repeat, what happens on webhook failure, or the persistence/lifecycle. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 well-structured: opening with purpose, then trigger definitions, usage guidance, plan requirement, and webhook constraint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it contains marketing fluff ('The one tool that makes an agent come back') which is unnecessary but not harmful. Overall efficient, but a tighter edit would earn 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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: triggers, webhook requirement, and usage context. However, it has gaps: the schema marks coin as optional, yet the description implies it is needed ('on one coin'), and the band parameter for funding_band is only explained in the schema, not reinforced here. The phrase 'Descriptive market data only' is vague. These ambiguities reduce completeness.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains what each trigger means in plain language (e.g., radar_unusual = 'whale flow turns unusual versus the coin's own normal'), and clarifies the webhook requirement (public https URL you control). It also reinforces the coin usage with examples like 'watch BTC for'. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 the verb 'Arm an alert' and specifies the resource (one coin) and the three distinct trigger types (radar_unusual, flag_fired, funding_band) with brief explanations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like watch_delete and watch_list by implying a creation action. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'use it for

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