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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds useful context: 'Read-only' and 'No API key required', reinforcing safety. While it doesn't disclose additional behaviors beyond annotations, it adds value with the no-key note.

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?

Three sentences front-load the primary function and examples, then direct to alternatives and prerequisites. No wasted words; each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple; description covers return details, usage examples, and prerequisites. No output schema, but stated return fields suffice. Minor gaps in parameter coverage prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is only 33% (rationale has description, exchangeId and quotes do not). The description explains exchangeId as 'an exchange id such as binance', adding meaning beyond schema. However, it omits quotes and rationale details (though rationale has schema description). The description partially compensates for low coverage but not fully.

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 tool retrieves details for a specific exchange, listing specific data points (24h volume, market count, trust score, etc.) and providing representative usage examples. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like getExchangeMarkets and search/getExchanges, making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use (e.g., 'tell me about Binance') and when not to use (e.g., for traded pairs use getExchangeMarkets). It guides users to first find the exchange ID via search or getExchanges, and confirms no API key is required.

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