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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the formula, the trailing windows, the caution flag for windows under 7 days, and quote exposure for the holder, all of which are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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?

The description is dense but efficient: it covers the metric, formula, windows, caveat, quote exposure, and intended use in three sentences with no filler. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete for practical use. It explains what is measured, how it is computed, the annualization caveat, and the exposure implication, so an agent can both select and invoke it correctly.

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%, and the 'mint' parameter is already described as a StonkFun reward coin mint address. The description reinforces that the coin is a StonkFun reward coin, but it adds no meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

The description states the exact deliverable: trailing 7d / 30d / lifetime holder yield for a StonkFun reward coin, and even spells out the calculation. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools by naming the specific metric and the user question it answers.

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 gives a direct trigger: 'Use when asked "what does this coin pay holders?"'. This is clear, actionable usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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