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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (ranked headlines plus risk index and severity) and the conditional behavior where the crypto radar returns live EUR prices — a non-obvious side effect an agent would not learn from the schema.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the most useful information: the payload shape first, then the crypto special case. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause carries distinct information.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and it does so for the general and crypto cases, which is the main thing an agent needs. It stops short of describing the risk index or severity scales, truncation behavior at the limit, or ordering semantics, but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the radar enum and the limit bounds (1-30, default 10) fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior — not what 'weight' means, not how ranking interacts with limit, and it never mentions the limit parameter at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('full feed of one radar') and enumerates the payload fields (source, time, weight, link, risk index, severity), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_radars by emphasizing 'one radar', but it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_radars (list all radars) or get_prices. The 'one radar' phrasing and the note that the crypto radar bundles Kraken prices imply the usage context, but an agent must infer both the selection rule and the fact that a price call may be redundant for the crypto radar.

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