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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (CoinGecko) and output (price + change), but does not explain the behavior of the 'q' parameter, default behavior, error conditions, or any potential limitations.

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 a short, front-loaded phrase with no filler. It is efficient, though it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The tool is simple, but the input parameter 'q' is entirely unexplained, which is essential for correct invocation. The output schema may cover return values, but the input semantics are a critical missing piece.

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 schema has one parameter 'q' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never explains what 'q' should contain (coin symbol, name, ID, etc.). The description adds no semantic value beyond the bare 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 clearly states it provides live coin price and 24h change, sourced from CoinGecko. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'crypto' or 'cryptomarket', but the focus on price and 24h change is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the long sibling list containing similar crypto tools, the agent is left to infer which tool fits, with no explicit routing or exclusions.

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