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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: a one-week lookback window, the upstream source (Cryptowisser), and the fact that each story bundles its latest articles. It omits ordering/ranking logic and any rate or freshness caveats.

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 no filler, and the core scope ('past week', 'ongoing stories') is front-loaded before the usage hint. 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description conveys what comes back (stories with their latest articles), the time window, and the source. Only the ranking/order of the returned stories is left unstated, which is a minor 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 5, range 1-10), so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no meaning about whether the limit counts stories versus articles, which is the one ambiguity the schema leaves open.

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 ('Get the biggest ongoing crypto stories of the past week') plus the source and the fact that each story carries its latest articles. That scope distinguishes it from a plain article feed, but it never names the sibling tools it competes with (latest-news, search-news).

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?

'Suited to questions about the big or developing stories in crypto' gives an implied usage context, so an agent can infer this is for trend-level questions rather than single-article lookups. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, leaving the agent to guess against latest-news and search-news.

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