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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'read on-chain' aligns with those without contradiction. It adds the scoping of what is read (supply, burnt, vault, price) but discloses nothing deeper like data freshness, price source, or caching behavior — acceptable given the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 19-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before enumerating the return fields. There is zero redundancy, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 simple read tool with one optional fully-documented parameter and safety covered by annotations, the description is nearly complete — it even lists the returned values despite there being no output schema. Minor gaps like price source or data latency are tolerable at this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the quote parameter is fully documented in the schema already. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and with the baseline of 3 applying at full coverage, it neither needs to compensate nor exceeds the schema's explanation.

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 and resource — 'read on-chain' the $SWOGE token economy — and enumerates the exact data points returned (total supply, burnt, casino vault, current USD price). This specificity makes it clearly distinguishable from all ten siblings, none of which target $SWOGE economics.

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 implies usage context through its specificity, letting an agent infer 'use this for $SWOGE on-chain token metrics.' However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_token or wallet_intel, nor does it give any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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