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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that (e.g., auth requirements, pagination behavior, response size). No contradiction, but also zero added value.

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 a single short sentence, but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It wastes the opportunity to provide useful navigation or caveats, so it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 there is no output schema, 7 optional parameters, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete. An agent has no idea what a 'dual investment plan' is, what parameters to combine, or what results to expect.

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 covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but baseline is 3 because the schema already 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?

Description states verb 'List' and resource 'dual investment plans', which is specific and matches the tool name. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling earn tools like cex_earn_list_earn_fixed_term_products or cex_earn_list_uni_currencies, so an agent might not know which is which.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling list tools. The description is merely a restatement of the tool name.

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