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 known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: calls are logged before the outcome then scored, and it specifies the exact metrics computed, which goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the core resource and follow with the metric list. No wasted words, though the second sentence is a somewhat long enumeration.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how the data is generated. It stops short of explaining the return shape or pending-call semantics, but the annotations and schema carry the rest.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the single optional 'coin' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'overall and per coin' implies the coin parameter's effect but adds no format or syntax detail beyond 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?

The description names a specific resource (OwlChart's liquidity pull model track record) and specifies the exact contents returned: hit rate, direction accuracy, 95% range, pending calls, overall and per coin. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_owl_score or get_market_radar.

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 record contains but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_owl_score. Usage is implied for credibility checks, but there are no stated exclusions or alternative routing.

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