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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so meaningfully: 'Does not sign' states that this tool does not execute transactions, and the hint about slice-of-supply tells the agent that output is advisory rather than directive. It doesn't cover every possible side-effect or return detail, but the key behavioral limitations are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, how to interpret it, and what it does not do. The subject is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

The description explains the tool's scope and key caveats well, but it leaves minP undefined and provides no explicit return structure beyond the suggested slice. Since there is no output schema or annotations, these omissions are meaningful 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions minP or limit. minP is particularly opaque despite its default/min/max constraints, so an agent cannot determine what it controls or how to set it correctly.

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 identifies the resource and scope: just-graduated Pons coins under $200k. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns' and doesn't call out sibling screeners, but the core purpose is specific and understandable.

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 gives clear usage context: use it for newly graduated low-cap coins, and it directs the agent to talon_calls for conviction levels. It also sets expectations with 'Suggested slice of supply is a hint' and 'Does not sign', which function as when-not guidance, though it doesn't enumerate all alternative tools.

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