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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Read-only public research data' clarifies the data scope, and 'No account access, no order placement or fund transfers' explicitly discloses what the tool does not do, preventing misconceptions about capabilities not implied by annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by routing and safety notes. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. It effectively balances brevity with clarity, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the tool's core purpose, routing to siblings, behavioral aspects, and exclusions. Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 optional parameters) and rich annotations, the description provides all necessary context for correct invocation.

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%, so all 8 parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'category, chain, cap, type' which maps to some parameters but adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's function: 'Multi-row asset list by category, chain, cap, type.' It uses a specific verb (list/search) and resource (assets) with filters. It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming get_coin_info for single clear matches and get_coin_rankings for boards, making it immediately distinguishable.

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 description provides direct routing guidance: 'One clear match→get_coin_info. Boards→get_coin_rankings.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also adds usage context ('Read-only public research data') and exclusions ('No account access, no order placement or fund transfers'), making the tool's appropriate use explicit.

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