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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the executing agent (crypto-market-agent-sonnet), that every delivery settles with an HMAC-signed ProofOfSettledOutcome, that it may return a first-line DEGRADED notice when live data is unavailable, and that it is paid via x402 ($0.20 USDC per call). This is substantial behavioral context covering cost, failure mode, and settlement. It does not describe rate limits or the report's actual output format, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, then proof/settlement and degradation behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the settlement/proof clause is dense and could be tightened. Appropriately sized for a multi-faceted 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, cost, degradation behavior, and delivery proof. The only minor gap is the absence of any detail on what the report body contains or how the combined reads are presented, but the essential call-time information is present.

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?

Only one parameter (task), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation guidance for the task string beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific deliverable (consolidated market/asset report combining price, volatility, sentiment, and arbitrage) for a specific scope (one ticker across venues). It explicitly positions itself against siblings: 'Broader scope than any single oracle.* SKU below; narrower and cheaper than security.massat-audit's compliance-grade evidence.' An agent can distinguish it from oracle.price-feed and the other oracle.* tools without opening schemas.

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 comparative positioning ('broader than any single oracle.* SKU', 'narrower and cheaper than security.massat-audit') tells the agent when this is the right choice versus its closest alternatives. It stops short of explicit when-not/if-then routing, but the scope boundaries are clear enough to select correctly.

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