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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: synchronous return of answer text, no polling required, no wallet addresses taken, no transactions executed, and an isolated session separate from the Anon conversation. Only the return-shape detail is left implicit.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what Gemma is and does, followed by the synchronous behavior and the routing rule. Every sentence earns its place, though the domain enumeration is slightly list-heavy.

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 one-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema research tool, the definition covers identity, capability scope, execution mode, session isolation, input format expectation, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'text' parameter already carries an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal framing (research question, contract-address token analytics, no wallet addresses) but no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Ask) and named resource (Gemma, the Hey Anon crypto research assistant) and enumerates the covered domains: protocol analysis, social insights, market data, news, token analytics by contract address. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_anon, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit routing rule: 'Prefer ask_gemma for general crypto questions and ask_anon for anything about the user wallets or for actions.' This is a clear when-to-use plus a named alternative with the condition that selects it.

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