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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default threshold (10%) and the 24h lookback window, plus that results are limited to 'liquid' perps, but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or what 'funding context' actually contains.

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?

One tight sentence with the key qualifier ('alert list', threshold, window) front-loaded after the tier marker. No waste, though 'PRO' and 'liquid' are undefined jargon.

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 3-parameter screening tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks return-shape, result-count and min_volume_usd semantics. Adequate but not self-sufficient.

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 coverage is only 33%; threshold_pct is partly explained by the 'default 10%' mention and min_volume_usd is loosely implied by 'liquid perps', but neither is defined (units, bounds, filtering semantics). The description partially compensates but leaves real gaps.

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 (liquid perps), the selection criterion (>threshold move in 24h) and the payload (funding context) clearly. It implicitly contrasts with funding_extremes and perp_scanner but never names them, so an agent must infer the split.

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 'PRO' prefix and 'alert list' framing imply it is a screening/notification tool for subscribers, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to market_pulse, perp_scanner or funding_extremes.

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