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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pagination and result ordering (rank ascending) that the schema does not state, but omits default page size, what the cursor represents, and any auth or rate-limit context for a read endpoint.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the pagination/ordering fact is front-loaded and the filter caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.

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-required-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers pagination, ordering, and filter intent adequately. A note on default page size or the shape of returned items would close the remaining gap.

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 all four parameters (q, limit, cursor, tracked) are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds the result-ordering guarantee but otherwise repeats the tracked-filter semantics rather than extending them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a paginated list of coins') plus the ordering guarantee (rank ascending), which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular get_coin sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage guidance is for the `tracked` filter ('Pass the `tracked` filter only when you need to limit results by editorial coverage'), which largely restates the schema's own description. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_coin or list_categories, and no exclusions.

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