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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that: daily refresh cadence, 50-per-page paging, the AlphaGrowth source, and an important data caveat that a team 'unlock' may vest per person rather than hit the market at once. That caveat materially affects how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and returned fields come first, then filters/sorting, then caveats and source. It is a single long sentence stack, which is heavy to read, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, the description compensates by enumerating every returned field, the row/page size, and the interpretation caveat about vesting vs market delivery. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response without further documentation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the page size matches the 50-per-page listing, explains sort_by intent (soonest vs largest first), maps category values (insiders = team and advisors, privateSale = investors), and notes that tokens without a price drop out when min_value_usd > 0.

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 ('Upcoming token unlocks from the tokens' emissions schedules') and enumerates exactly what each row contains (cliff tokens, linear vesting net change, allocations, USD value, share of circulating supply). No sibling among chain_metrics, fees, project_metrics etc. covers unlock schedules, so the tool is unmistakable.

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 concrete filtering axes (days ahead, allocation category, minimum USD value, single token) and sorting options, plus points to find_projects for the token slug. It describes how to narrow results but does not state when an agent should prefer this over other project tools or any exclusions.

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