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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: confidence-weighting, recency decay, 24h window, and curated author coverage. This meaningfully enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with [DRILL-DOWN]. Each sentence adds distinct information—metrics, coverage, and REST equivalence—with no filler or redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description covers purpose, scope, methodology, and exclusions sufficiently. The only minor gap (param format) is already addressed in parameter semantics; overall the tool is well-contextualized.

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 one 'coin' string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'for a coin' without specifying the expected format (ticker, slug, ID), leaving the agent to guess the parameter value format.

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?

Description clearly states 'Aggregate sentiment for a coin' and details the exact outputs (net directional lean, chatter volume/velocity, contributing sources). The emphasis on curated high-edge authors versus mass social volume distinguishes it from sibling sentiment tools.

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?

Provides context that this is a 24h drill-down and explicitly excludes mass social volume, implying use for smart-money sentiment. However, it does not name alternative tools for other sentiment types, so it lacks fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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