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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two useful behavioral traits: results 'can be large' (size warning) and 'observations can be stale' (data freshness caveat), which are not derivable from 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?

Three short clauses, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, how to narrow scope, and a data-freshness caveat. No wasted words, front-loaded with the resource.

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 no-param list read with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to call it and to prefer the alternative when appropriate. It omits return shape details, but with no output_schema those remain somewhat implied even if the endpoint is named.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no filtering inputs are accepted and routes to the parameterized sibling for address-scoped queries.

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 ('Listed token market rows') and names the source endpoint (GET /api/tokens). It clearly distinguishes itself from the single-token sibling by pointing to memeswap_token for one address.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer memeswap_token when targeting a single address, which is a clear alternative-routing rule. It does not state when-not-to-use in other senses, but the primary sibling distinction is handled.

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