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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read-only public research data. No account access, no order placement or fund transfers. Not investment advice.' This goes beyond annotations by clarifying it is public research, non-actionable, and not financial advice, which is valuable context.

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 short but the second sentence 'Cross-sector dashboard across DeFi, spot, perp, stablecoin, or bridge→get_defi_overview' is cryptic and potentially confusing, detracting from clarity. While it is brief, the unclear use of the arrow hurts the structure.

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 that an output schema exists and the schema covers all parameters, the description provides sufficient context: it states the two modes (ranking vs breakdown), the scope, and safety properties. It does not explain the output format, but that is already handled by the output schema, so it is complete enough.

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 the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 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 explicitly states 'Bridge ranking or one-bridge chain breakdown,' which is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It also names the sibling tool get_defi_overview, distinguishing this tool as the bridge-focused counterpart.

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 hints at usage via 'Cross-sector dashboard across DeFi, spot, perp, stablecoin, or bridge→get_defi_overview,' suggesting that for DeFi overview one should use get_defi_overview, while this tool handles bridge data. Though not perfectly explicit, it provides a routing clue without describing exclusions for other siblings.

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