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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world safety, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: one point per UTC day using the day's last sample, coverage starting 2024-07-24, and a default of the entire history. It does not discuss rate limits or response shape, but the sampling semantics and data window are exactly the kind of detail an agent cannot get 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core resource and unit of measure, with the sampling rule and coverage window following. The AlphaGrowth provenance clause is the only part that is arguably optional, though it explains a data-trust characteristic.

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 read-only, three-parameter time-series tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition gives the granularity, sampling rule, start-of-coverage, and default range — enough to call it correctly. The only gap is how it relates to neighboring treasury tools.

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%, and the parameters carry their own format, defaults, and dao-id cross-reference. The description only restates the whole-history default, adding no syntax or interpretation beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 total treasury value in USD for a single DAO. 'History' implicitly distinguishes it from dao_treasury / dao_treasury_snapshot (point-in-time), but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 by the word 'history' and the date-range framing, but the description never says when to pick this over dao_treasury, dao_treasury_snapshot, or dao_holdings_history (which gives per-asset breakdowns). An agent must infer the boundary itself.

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