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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does provide some constraints: 'Does not sell. Does not sign.' and 'Health, story, scan, and diligence are already on each buy.' It also mentions routing ('Solana fills on Jupiter') and time windows ('First twenty minutes'). However, these are buried in strategy details and not clearly attributed to the tool's own behavior, so the disclosure is incomplete and hard to parse.

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 a long, unstructured block of trading instructions, mixing strategy, execution rules, and warnings. It lacks clear sections, front-loading, or a concise summary of the tool's function. Nearly every sentence is verbose and redundant, making it difficult for an agent to extract key information quickly.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to explain what the tool returns, what happens after invocation, or how the provided inputs (avoid, holdings) affect the execution. The focus on strategy details leaves critical operational information missing.

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 schema descriptions already cover both parameters: 'avoid' (addresses scan already marked avoid) and 'holdings' (what this wallet already holds). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so no reason to deviate.

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 reads as a trading strategy narrative rather than a tool purpose. It says 'The one Hands call' and describes a series of actions ('watch every mint', 'buy on opening volume'), but never explicitly states what the tool does as a function (e.g., executes trades, monitors mints, or returns a decision). The purpose is vague and not differentiated from siblings.

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?

The only guidance is a negative instruction: 'Do not call scan, story, desk, open, wire, or diligence on the Hands loop.' This implies when not to use other tools, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or prerequisites for invoking it.

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