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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the fixed 60-day window and the specific return fields such as recipients, USD value, supply share, and futures availability.

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 two tight sentences with the scope and key output details front-loaded. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the time window, identifier flexibility, and return content. The only notable omission is any mention of the lang parameter, though its enum and default make it relatively self-explanatory.

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 token parameter is explained with concrete examples for ticker, name, and slug, adding some clarity beyond the schema's brief 'Ticker, name or slug.' However, the lang parameter is not mentioned at all, and schema description coverage is only 50%.

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 a specific resource and scope: scheduled unlocks in the next 60 days for one token. The phrase 'for one token' implicitly distinguishes this from the broader sibling get_upcoming_unlocks, and the included return details make the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one token' and the accepted identifier formats, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_upcoming_unlocks or get_method_and_track_record. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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