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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false: the 'last sample up to 6 days before it' staleness rule, the ordering, the date bounds, and the default. It doesn't state the response shape or how many DAOs are returned, but it discloses the sampling lag that would otherwise cause an agent to misreport data freshness.

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 front-loads what is returned, then scope, then ordering, then bounds. The trailing attribution ('Free data from AlphaGrowth') is mild filler but does flag provenance; borderline but acceptable.

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 zero-required-param, read-only snapshot with a fully documented schema, the description covers coverage (every listed DAO), freshness lag, ordering, range, and default. Only the granularity of 'listed DAO' (which universe) and the response fields are left unstated, and no output schema exists to cover the latter.

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% and the schema already carries the format, example, range, and default for 'date'. The description repeats the same range and default rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning, 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?

Names a specific resource (every listed DAO's treasury value in USD), a unit (one UTC day), and an ordering (largest first). Among siblings like dao_treasury, dao_treasury_history, and dao_holdings_history, the phrase 'every listed DAO ... as of one UTC day' clearly marks this as the cross-DAO snapshot rather than a single-DAO or time-series tool.

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 clear context (a daily snapshot for any day since 2024-07-24, default yesterday) that implies when to use this vs. a history tool, but never names dao_treasury_history or dao_treasury as the alternatives an agent should pick when it wants a per-DAO series instead of a cross-sectional snapshot.

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