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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the scope-dependent response contents but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness beyond the window. With annotations covering safety, the added scope behavior is adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loads the primary recommendation (scope=overview) and the routing to alternatives in three tightly packed sentences. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope outputs or directing to siblings.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description is thorough in explaining what each scope returns. However, it lacks details on the shape of the returned data (e.g., field names, pagination) and specific behavioral traits like required permissions. For a read-only market stats tool, this is nearly complete but leaves minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both the scope and window parameters. The description's parameter details largely reiterate the schema definitions (e.g., scope=volume returns per-token and total swap volume over window). It adds marginal value over the structured fields.

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 the specific resource (market-level numbers for Epsilon on Robinhood Chain DEX) and uses a precise verb. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_tokens and list_fills as alternatives for narrower needs.

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?

Explicitly recommends scope=overview as the best first call, then details what each scope returns and routes to search_tokens and list_fills for other needs. It provides 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.