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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently describes the data source (LI.FI API, 9+ protocols), caching behavior (5-min cache), and data retention (365-day table with permanent monthly archive). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the disclosed details are sufficient for a read-only data tool.

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 four sentences long and front-loads the main purpose. While it includes some technical details (table names, retention), each sentence adds value. The structure is clear, but could be slightly more concise by removing internal table references.

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 description fully explains what the tool returns (one row per day with specific fields), the data source, caching, and retention. Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), it provides all necessary context for an agent to understand and use 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 coverage is 100% as the only parameter 'days' has a description in the schema. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides, such as default value and range. Thus the description adds minimal semantic value 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 states it retrieves daily cross-chain bridge flow history, listing specific fields (volume USD, transaction count, protocol count, top protocol). It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'daily cross-chain bridge flow history' with a scope of up to 90 days. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'bridge_flows', which may cause slight ambiguity.

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 mentions it is 'useful for tracking cross-chain capital flow trends', providing a general use case. It does not specify when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without clear exclusions.

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