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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose read-only status and that the output is a deterministic score, not a trading directive. It omits data freshness, rate limits, auth needs, and what 'multi-source' concretely covers beyond GMGN.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and no filler. The 'never a trading directive' clause earns its place by setting expectations for the score output.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does and roughly what it returns, but leaves the parameters unexplained and the return payload's shape unspecified.

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 0% and neither of the two parameters is explained. The description never says that 'address' identifies the token nor what 'holderLimit' controls (holder sample size), so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 and resource: multi-source GMGN due diligence on a Robinhood Chain token. It is clearly a research/aggregation tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like agentcity_robinhood_signals or agentcity_robinhood_smart_money.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. The agent can infer it is for researching a single token, but nothing tells it when to prefer this over search, signals, or smart_money.

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