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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: 60 changes/hour rate limit, that only the user sees the page, that numbers are sourced and never guessed (withheld if implausible), and that it places no orders or moves funds. It also specifies auth requirements (agent linked to a registered user via API key, OAuth, or claim flow), which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Core semantics are front-loaded, which is good, but the description is one dense run-on block that mixes field semantics with auth instructions, rate limits, disclaimers, and provenance marketing. Every clause carries some information, yet the structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers parameter behavior, reversibility (undo/reset), authentication prerequisites, rate limits, and safety guarantees. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: cardinality limits (pins up to 6, levels up to 8, notes up to 10), the notion that empty values revert to the standard page, and the mental model that numbers come from the dashboard and cannot be altered.

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+resource ('Arrange your user's own version of one coin's dashboard') and the scope clearly. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-named siblings like crypto_dashboard or crypto_dashboard_custom, so an agent must infer the boundary from context.

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?

Clear invocation guidance: 'Pass only the fields to change', and explicit semantics for replace/undo/reset (empty list or empty text reverts a field). It does not name an alternative tool or say when NOT to use this, so it stops short of the 5-level routing guidance.

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