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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — API-key/Watch-plan auth requirement, free pricing, and the versioned payload tag — but stays silent on snapshot recency, alert window, and rate limits.

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 short sentences with the payload scope front-loaded and the gating requirement immediately after; nothing is padded. The one-word 'Free.' fragment is efficient but slightly clipped for a standalone sentence.

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 one parameter, rich annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present, and naming 'snapshot and recent alerts' gives a rough shape of the return. What's missing is the alert window/recency semantics and any sense of response size or pagination — things an agent should know before calling.

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% with a single required 'mint' documented as a base58 Solana token mint address, so the schema carries the full load. The description adds no meaning about the mint beyond what the pattern and property description already say, which is the baseline case.

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 retrieval: a current Bag Watch snapshot plus recent alerts for one coin, tagged with the response version (bagwatch.report.v1). The resource and scope are clear, though 'recent alerts' invites confusion with the sibling alerts_since, which the description never addresses.

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 supplies a precondition ('Requires a key for a wallet with an active Watch plan') and a cost note ('Free'), which implicitly frames eligibility. However, it never says when to choose this over alerts_since or the other check_* siblings, so the agent must infer routing from names alone.

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