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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond this by specifying the 0-100 score range, the three fused components, and an Exit Liquidity Radar flag. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context about what the score represents.

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 highly concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose, then expand on the components. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It earns its place in a compact form.

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 partially explains the return: a score 0-100 and a flag. However, it does not describe the response structure, the meaning of the Exit Liquidity Radar flag, or how to interpret the score in practical terms. For a tool of moderate conceptual complexity, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'symbol' parameter, but it does not mention the parameter at all. It leaves the agent to infer that symbol means the asset ticker, with no format or constraints provided. This is a clear gap given the low coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Signal Integrity score'), and the conceptual purpose ('is the move real or exit liquidity?'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explaining it fuses social authenticity, on-chain reality, and fundamental backing, which is unique among the many get_* 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?

The description explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_asset_scores or get_ai_substance. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when this score is the right choice.

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