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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by adding data provenance and freshness (collected every 6 hours, audited before publishing), the auth posture ('no key'), and an interpretation caveat ('not a signal'). It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then the parameters, and every clause carries information rather than filler. It is dense with parentheticals and semicolons, which costs a little readability, but nothing is expendable.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the response shape ('every number is {value, unit}', 'every record has as_of') and the pagination fields (`total`, `next`). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 beyond the schema: 'price_vs_revenue (cheapest first)' disambiguates sort direction, 'offset to page (follow `next`)' explains the paging mechanism, and `total` is identified as the record count. Enum values for kind and sort are already in the schema, so part of this repeats structured data.

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 ('Find crypto gems: the full ranked list of tokenized crypto apps or chains'), scoped to paged results, which distinguishes it from gem_screener_picks, gem_screener_coin and gem_screener_degen_report by the words 'full ranked list'. An agent knows exactly what it retrieves before opening the schema.

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 operational guidance (sort options, limit 1-100, offset paging via `next`) and frames the tool as 'a research screen, not a signal', which is useful context for interpreting output. However, it never names the sibling tools or states when to choose this over gem_screener_picks or gem_screener_coin; that routing is left to inference.

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