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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, so behavioral burden is lower. The description adds valuable context: the detection mechanism ('comparing market list changes every 60 seconds'), the specific alert categories detected, and payment requirements ($0.01 USDC per call, x402 payment). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 a functional summary first, then payment and access details in a clearly separated block. It's slightly longer than necessary because of pricing/client info, but each sentence carries useful information for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain parameters or return values. It fully covers what the tool detects, how detection works (60-second polling), and the cost/access requirements, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaning to add. The description compensates by explaining what the tool does when invoked, satisfying the baseline for zero-param tools.

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 clearly states 'Get Korean exchange alerts' and enumerates specific alert types (new listings, delistings, investment warnings, caution flags). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_kimchi_premium or get_arbitrage_scanner.

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 notes 'Critical for risk management and early listing detection,' providing clear use context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusion found in top-tier examples.

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