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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds contextual behavior beyond that: the payload can be slimmed with series=false, and it discloses the dual return content (momentum signal plus a curated crypto token-event list contrasted with cure-research capital).

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 usage trigger and the level-vs-dynamics framing, with the routing hint at the end. It is dense but every clause carries information. Slightly long with the crypto-list detail, but no wasted filler.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, which it does reasonably (7-day momentum, 30-day series, crypto token list). Combined with full schema coverage on the three filters, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination/format details are absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents series, disease, and include. The description's 'Set series=false to slim the payload' restates what the schema field description already says, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (attention dynamics) with a clear contrast to what it is not: 'attention dynamics rather than levels'. It names what is measured (7-day momentum, 30-day daily series, attention concentration) and differentiates from the sibling get_mind_signal, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Opens with 'USE WHEN' and gives the selecting condition (need attention dynamics rather than levels). It also names the follow-on tool explicitly: 'NEXT: get_mind_signal for the capital levels behind the momentum', which routes the agent to the complementary call.

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