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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds worthwhile context by defining the strength rating as relative to circulating supply and noting the 60-day ceiling, but says nothing about data freshness, pagination/truncation behavior when limit is hit, or coverage of exchanges.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and its key rating semantic, the second supplies usage triggers. No filler, and the bounded window is stated before any examples.

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?

With six optional parameters, no required inputs, and no output schema, the definition successfully conveys the result shape (a calendar of unlocks with a size rating) and the hard cap on the window. It leaves the exact per-entry fields (token, date, exchange, futures venue) unstated, which matters slightly since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely lifts it by explaining that 'strength' in min_strength is measured against circulating supply rather than market cap or absolute value. It doesn't clarify the futures filter or limit default beyond what the schema already states.

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 (calendar of scheduled token unlocks), a bounded scope (next N days, up to 60), and a return-value semantic (rated strong/medium/small by size relative to circulating supply). Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_token_unlocks, so an agent can't tell which one covers past vs. future unlocks from the description alone.

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 example questions ('which token unlocks are coming this week', 'biggest unlocks in November', 'strong unlocks with perpetual futures') clearly anchor the intended use cases in forward-looking, size-filtered lookups. It gives positive context but no explicit exclusions or pointer to the sibling for historical data, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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