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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful context beyond that: a 90-day history ceiling, daily granularity, and free data provenance from AlphaGrowth. It does not discuss rate limits, response shape, or what happens for projects with no community data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the data is before the provenance footer. Both earn their place, though the AlphaGrowth attribution is marginally less essential than the metric description.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations detailing returns, the description carries the burden of explaining the return values — and it does, specifying per-network follower/member counts, percent changes over three windows, and one point per day. Only the exact response field structure and large-slug handling are left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents slug, days, and network. The description reinforces the network list and the 90-day maximum, but adds no syntax, defaults, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema.

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?

The description names the resource precisely — community growth for a crypto project — and enumerates the networks and metrics returned (followers/members, 1d/7d/30d percent changes). That distinguishes it from siblings like project_metrics and chain_metrics by scope. It never states an explicit verb, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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 data described, and an agent can infer this is the right tool for community/social growth. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus project_metrics or chain_metrics, and no mention that a slug must first be resolved via find_projects — that guidance lives only in the schema.

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