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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world, but the description adds substantive context not in them: historical start date (2024-07-24), the 92-day per-call cap, the default window, and the upstream data source (AlphaGrowth). Return shape is described at a field level (amount, USD value, price).

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 dense sentence that front-loads what the tool returns before parenthetical detail, with constraints and cadence after. No waste, though the nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than a two-clause split would be.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still names the returned fields, the aggregation grain, the earliest available date and the call-size limit. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result without opening anything else.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds the window constraint (92-day cap, 30-day default) that the schema itself does not encode. It does not restate the date format or the dao-id lookup, which the schema already handles.

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: daily token holdings of one DAO treasury, with per-token amount, USD value and price, one point per token per UTC day. The 'per token per UTC day' phrasing implicitly separates it from DAO-level siblings like dao_treasury_history/dao_treasury_snapshot, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Gives the operating window (max 92 days per call, last 30 days by default) and the schema points at dao_treasuries for the DAO id, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over dao_treasury_history or dao_treasury_snapshot. Usage is implied by granularity rather than declared.

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