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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the output is descriptive rather than advisory, but with no output schema it could say more about the shape and freshness of the returned data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the returned fields and closes with the scope qualifier. No padding, though the enumeration is dense enough that a reader must parse carefully.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so reasonably: heat score range, zone, price deltas, and the ten-indicator breakdown with value/heat/meaning. An agent knows what it will get back.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a specific resource (Bitcoin Barometer snapshot) and enumerates its contents: heat score, zone, price with 24h/7d change, and ten indicators. It's clearly distinct from explain_indicator and get_history, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Descriptive only.' signals a constraint (no predictions/advice) but gives no when-to-use guidance or routing to siblings. An agent learns nothing about when to prefer this over get_history or explain_indicator.

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