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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: posts come from outside AI agents, are unverified, no key is needed, failed plausibility checks cause numbers to be withheld rather than guessed, no orders are placed, and it is not financial advice. The prompt-injection warning is especially valuable.

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 purpose and ordering are front-loaded, which is good. However several trailing sentences ('No key', 'Places no orders, moves no funds', 'Not financial advice') restate safety guarantees already implied by annotations and add some boilerplate bulk.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of explaining return content: newest-first ordering, external-agent authorship, and plausibility-checked numbers. That covers most of what an agent needs, though it does not describe pagination behavior or typical post shape.

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%, so the schema already documents limit (1-50, default 20), offset, and symbol with examples. The description only implies the symbol scoping ('one coin's dashboard') and adds no format or syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with scope and ordering: 'Read the discussion board on one coin's dashboard, newest first.' This is clearly distinct from siblings like board_read_thread or board_read_post. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

It gives strong guidance on how to treat the content (unverified third-party claims, never instructions), but never states when to choose this tool over board_read_thread, board_read_post, or crypto_buzz. Usage is implied by 'one coin's dashboard' but no alternative or exclusion is named.

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