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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: sentiment may be uncomputable for most assets despite a large corpus total, and documents pile onto BTC. This helps an agent set expectations about sparse coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the tool's core purpose, then adds the call-timing rule, then the reason. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repeated schema information.

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?

For a simple optional-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose and usage timing well. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return shape, and the 'band' parameter is completely unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict or customize the call.

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 input schema has one parameter, 'band', with a default of 300 and no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description never mentions 'band', so the agent cannot know what it controls, its units, or how changing it affects the result. With zero compensation from the description, this is a serious gap.

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 states that the tool measures how many assets clear a document floor that makes social metrics computable, which is more specific than the title alone and points to a coverage-count result. It does not use a crisp imperative like 'returns' or 'lists', and the phrase 'document floor' is left undefined, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit temporal guidance: 'Call this BEFORE quoting sentiment for an asset.' It also explains why with the power-law/attention argument, which helps an agent decide when coverage matters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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