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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context about the analysis dimensions and output format, but it does not disclose methodology, data sources, edge cases, or any side effects (e.g., whether it makes external calls or requires specific token standards). This is a read-only analysis tool, but the description is thin on behavioral details.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, lists specific metrics, and states expected outputs. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does, the inputs it expects, and what it returns. It could benefit from clarifying the exact output structure (e.g., ranking order, risk scale) but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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?

The schema description for 'mints' already clearly states '2-3 token mint addresses to compare' (100% coverage). The textual description reinforces the count and purpose but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool performs a side-by-side comparison of 2-3 tokens, enumerates specific dimensions (price, liquidity, volatility, holder concentration, risk), and mentions outputs (rankings, summary picks). This distinguishes it from single-token tools like enrich_token or token_trend.

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?

The description implies the tool is for comparing multiple tokens but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use this when you need to directly compare token fundamentals' or any mention of alternatives.

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