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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description does add useful domain semantics — the 'Solid or Sharp' skill taxonomy and the per-trade fields returned (skill score, edge, return, specialty) — but says nothing about the recency window for 'recent', default limit, or whether results are paginated.

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?

One substantive sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, followed by a short positioning line that earns its place. No filler, though the second sentence is closer to marketing than specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be enumerated, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the key filter semantics; the only real gap is the undefined time window behind 'recent' and the unstated default for 'limit'.

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 both 'min' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, unit, or default information beyond it, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb+resource with a scope qualifier: 'recent large trades by skilled (Solid or Sharp) traders only'. This is clearly narrower than the sibling get_whale_trades, though it never names that sibling or any other, so differentiation must be inferred from the 'skilled only' filter.

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?

Implies the use case ('Separates informed whales from big gamblers'), which suggests an analyst chasing high-signal flow rather than raw activity. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against get_whale_trades, get_smart_money or list_top_traders, and no stated prerequisites.

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