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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world safety, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing the data provenance and the 'free data from AlphaGrowth' condition (no auth/key implied). With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields adds real behavioral value; it stops short of noting freshness or data-source lag.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The core action and return shape are front-loaded before the provenance attribution, and every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter single-record read with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the fields returned in place of a missing output schema and identifies the source. Minor gap: no distinction from dao_treasury_snapshot, which sounds like it could return overlapping data.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already tells the agent the id comes from dao_treasuries. The description's 'by id' restates the schema rather than adding format, range, or validity guidance — baseline 3.

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-equivalent ('one DAO treasury by id') and enumerates the payload fields (total USD value, 24h change, category, top tokens, main chain). The 'one ... by id' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling dao_treasuries list tool, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied only: you must already have an id, and the schema notes it comes from dao_treasuries. There is no explicit statement about when to use dao_treasury vs dao_treasury_snapshot, dao_treasury_history, or dao_holdings_history, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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