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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature by describing it as a metrics provider and adds context about daily snapshots and direction indicators. However, it does not specify the exact metrics included, the output format, or any access requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Token metrics over time') and includes relevant detail about snapshots and direction indicators. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description provides a sufficient high-level understanding of the tool's function and return type (daily snapshots) given the simple two-parameter schema. It lacks specifics on which metrics are tracked and the exact output structure, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (mint and lookback). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond implying that lookback is used for time periods. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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 that the tool provides token metrics over time with daily snapshots and direction indicators per metric. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_tokens (which compares tokens) and enrich_token (which likely gives a single snapshot) by emphasizing the temporal dimension.

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 usage for trend analysis ('over time', 'direction indicators') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer in other contexts.

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