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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), while the description adds substantial behavior: where price and totalSupply come from, the pressure scale semantics, unknown-input handling ('named, never zero'), and the explicit 'not a forecast' disclaimer.

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-loads the core concept and every clause carries information, but it is a single dense paragraph with a very long enumerative sentence about the return record. Justified by the absence of an output schema, yet still heavy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value disclosure, and it does: inputs[], unknown_names[], months[] with pie slices, yearly_pct, pressure, next_unlock, dilution_week_pct, refreshed_at. For a complex analytical tool this is complete.

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. The description goes further by clarifying that symbol accepts a ticker, slug or CoinGecko id, that contract + chain works for arbitrary tokens, and that a shared ticker yields AMBIGUOUS_TICKER — meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 precise verb and resource: it computes a token's supply as a month-by-month flow with named components (pile, in, out, yearly %, pressure). An agent immediately knows what it produces. It never names the sibling supply_analyzer_batch, so differentiation from the batch variant is left to inference.

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?

Gives explicit input modes: pass symbol for a Gem Screener coin, OR contract + chain for any token, and explains the AMBIGUOUS_TICKER outcome. No explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to supply_analyzer_batch for multi-token queries, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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