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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: 'Read-only public research data. No account access, no order placement or fund transfers. Not investment advice.' This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the nature of data access and safety boundaries. No contradiction with annotations.

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 yet information-dense. It leads with purpose, then explains scope, parameter interplay, alternatives, and safety—all in a few sentences with zero fluff. Perfectly front-loaded and well-structured.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not spell out return values. It covers usage, parameter interactions, alternatives, and safety constraints thoroughly. For a tool with 4 parameters and scope options, this is complete and 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 100%, but the description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema. It explains what scope=full truly adds: 'competition_metrics{} for CEX venues (spot/derivs/depth/OI core+extended/PoR)' and clarifies the purpose of oi_symbol_limit: 'for top-N OI breakdown'. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the exact purpose: 'One-shot protocol profile by name and scope.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the alternatives: 'Ranked multi-protocol list→search_platforms. Daily time series→get_platform_history.' This leaves no doubt about what the tool does and what it doesn't.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context and alternatives with conditions: 'Ranked multi-protocol list→search_platforms. Daily time series→get_platform_history.' It also clarifies scope behavior and parameter prerequisites. The description tells the agent when to use this tool (single profile) and when to use others, with clear routing.

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