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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing that results are derived live from on-chain tip activity and that ranking combines volume with recency — context the annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing result shape or window behavior, so not a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the ranking definition, then the usage rationale, then sibling routing. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

A two-parameter, zero-required read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description supplies ranking semantics, data provenance, and routing to alternatives — everything an agent needs to 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 both parameters (limit, window) are fully documented in the schema, including range and enum values. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 resource (creators) with a specific ranking criterion (tips received by volume and recency) plus the claim-verified qualifier. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_agents and lookup_blockpage, so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

Gives explicit use context ('discover who's actually earning — social proof for tipping decisions') and names two siblings with the conditions that select them (fuzzy name/purpose search, single exact page). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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