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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that: 'Unknown or no-data tickers may return an empty result with hide_reason=no_data' and 'leading and trailing whitespace is removed...normalized to uppercase.' It also discloses 'No account access, no order placement or fund transfers.' This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, then alternatives, then annotations-aligned caveats. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary (additional disclaimers like 'Not investment advice'), but each sentence serves a purpose. No redundant filler.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered there. The description covers purpose, scope, alternatives, safety (read-only), and edge-case behavior (no-data handling). For a tool with rich annotations and complete parameter documentation, nothing essential is missing 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 parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'one coin' and '4h' but these are already in schema). Per the baseline rule, score 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 ('Get') and resource ('top 2-4 social discussion themes for one coin over the latest 4h') with clear scope and output contents. It explicitly names sibling alternatives (search_ugc, search_x) and explains when to use them instead, making differentiation immediate.

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 alternatives: 'For arbitrary social search use search_ugc; for X/Twitter-only narrative research use search_x.' This clearly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and points to the correct sibling. It also adds context about read-only nature, which reinforces appropriate use.

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