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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds transparency about output behavior: per-line data freshness, coverage grade ('thin-coverage score cannot read like a full one'), and that it mirrors a REST endpoint. This goes beyond basic read-only context.

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 description is front-loaded with a clear headline ('[DRILL-DOWN — who is crowded] Positioning thesis for one coin'), followed by a compact list of components and features. It's long but every clause serves a purpose (e.g., coverage grade warning). The final disclaimer is brief but relevant for a non-advice tool. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, bias calculation, output characteristics), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what data feeds in, what the output looks like (bias, reasoning, freshness, coverage grade), and how to use it (instead of manual combination). No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden, and it meets that demand.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'coin'. The description implies coin is a symbol ('for one coin', default BTC) but doesn't provide examples, constraints, or format guidance. It partially compensates by mentioning 'one coin' and default BTC, but the meaning is largely inferred from context rather than explicit.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Positioning thesis for one coin: who is crowded and which way.' It specifies a distinct resource (positioning) and a specific analysis output (net bias in [-1,1]), differentiating it from sibling tools by naming the alternative approach. The 'DRILL-DOWN' header and component list further clarify scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use INSTEAD of manually combining get_liquidation_map + get_options + funding.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description also frames it as a conditioning context, setting expectations for usage.

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