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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: rewrite cadence (every 20s), staleness limit (<=120s then 503, not charged), per-call cost ($0.01 USDC via x402), the fields each burst carries, and that outcomes are scored 30 minutes post-signal. An agent knows the freshness, cost and failure semantics before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries operational value (fields returned, scoring, freshness, cost, refusal behavior). The first sentence is clause-dense and slightly run-on, so it reads crowded rather than wasteful.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return formatting needn't be explained, and the description still covers scope, returned signals, scoring lag, freshness, staleness refusal and pricing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% with two enums fully documented (lp, tier), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only marginal meaning, restating the 1-240 minute range and the rug-check concept ('who held the pool's liquidity at the signal') that the lp field already encodes.

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 ('buyer bursts'), the chain (Robinhood Chain), the source universe (every ETH-quoted Uniswap v4/v3 pool created in the last 24h) and the time window (1-240 minutes). The 'live' framing and freshness guarantees distinguish it from the history sibling without ambiguity.

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?

Clear context for when this applies: real-time signal monitoring with a hard <=30s freshness window and a 503 refusal past 120s, which implicitly routes backtesting/older lookups elsewhere. It never names an alternative sibling (e.g. rh_bursts_history) or states an explicit when-not, so it stops short of a 5.

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