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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: partial data is never reported as CALM, pagination continues via a next_offset field, and full receipts are only on REST. 'Display-only, not investment advice' also sets expectations on output nature.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and no filler. The compressed fragment style is efficient, though terms like CALM and receipts are used before being defined.

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 no output schema, naming the pagination.next_offset field is valuable, but key vocabulary (CALM, peg/run, receipts) is undefined and neither parameter is described. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read board, but not sufficient for an agent to fully interpret results.

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 0% for both limit and offset, so the description has to carry the burden. It only gestures at paging via next_offset and never explains limit's max of 8, offset semantics, or default page size, leaving the actual invocation details undocumented.

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 resource concretely as 'paged peg/run evidence', which clearly marks this as the stablecoin peg/run board rather than the crypto exposure or regime boards among its siblings. The verb is implicit (it is a read board) and the term 'CALM' is left undefined, but an agent can tell what it retrieves.

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?

'Follow pagination.next_offset' and 'Full receipts on REST' give operational direction and hint that REST is the route for full detail. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not versus the many adjacent board tools (crypto_exposure_board, failure_radar_board, etc.), so routing must be inferred from the domain wording.

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