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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the API version (v5.691) and hub/docs URLs, which is useful context, but discloses nothing about auth, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense paragraph with the tool's nature front-loaded and each mode's payload enumerated. The parenthetical lists are long but each element earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the data returned per mode. It stops short of describing the response shape/format or any limits, but is largely complete for a 2-param hub tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it spells out the market field list, the contract addresses scope, the link inventory, and reiterates days' 2–1000 range/default and that it applies to history only. That meaningfully enriches the bare enum descriptions in the schema.

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 ($CARV market/contracts/links/@carv_official data) and enumerates exactly what each mode returns. The verb+resource framing ('The $CARV developer API as one tool') is unambiguous and clearly distinct from generic siblings like get_price_history or search_markets.

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 details what each `what` value yields (market, history, contracts, links, x), which helps mode selection, but never says when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_price_history or get_price_history/show_chart. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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