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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: 'it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not write external systems or access user accounts.' It also confirms the read-only and idempotent nature, enriching the safety profile already hinted by annotations.

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 well-structured with clear segments for purpose, parameters, behavior, and usage. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and scales to the tool's simplicity.

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 parameterless tool, the description is remarkably complete: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, what not to use it for, and its safety profile. The output schema is present and aligned, so the agent has everything needed to select and correctly invoke the tool.

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?

With no parameters, the schema is inherently complete, but the description adds valuable semantic direction: 'Parameters: none; call it exactly as-is.' This tells the agent not to attempt passing arguments and to invoke the tool directly without modification.

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 precise action: 'summarize the active crypto public company universe by ATLAS-7 risk tier' and lists concrete return elements (risk-tier buckets such as HIGH, MODERATE, LOW, UNCLASSIFIED with issuer counts and percentages). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing its scope as market-wide context rather than issuer-level detail.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'when the user asks for market-wide risk mix or high-level distribution' and provides alternative tools: 'use top_stressed to name the issuers in the high-risk bucket and use issuer tools for company-level analysis.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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