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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the ordering behavior ('Newest first'), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about freshness, rate limits, pagination, or the difference between the ALERT tag and the other categories.

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 that front-loads the source and scope, then lists categories, then ends with the ordering guarantee. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the two optional parameters are fully covered by the schema. What is missing is routing information against the many overlapping siblings, which is the main thing an agent still needs.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the enum values are self-explanatory. The description's category list loosely maps to the tag enum, adding marginal value but no filtering syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource (an aggregated feed of signals) and enumerates the content types: verified whale trades, Sentinel rug warnings, Hunter launch picks, momentum and narrative calls. This is far more informative than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings that cover overlapping territory (get_whale_flows, get_launches, get_news).

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. Given siblings like get_whale_flows and get_launches whose subject matter is explicitly named in this description's own category list, an agent gets no help deciding whether to call this aggregated feed or the specialized tool.

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