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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key limitations: 'Owners are NOT resolved and an account is not necessarily a distinct wallet; concentration is a structural signal, NOT a verdict.' It also warns about stablecoin limitations and includes 'NOT financial advice.' It does not describe the exact return structure, but the output content is summarized (top accounts, concentration, buckets). This is substantial transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 dense and efficient, front-loading the primary purpose before adding caveats. Every sentence provides unique value: purpose, differentiation, output scope, limitations, and usage requirement. No fluff or repetition, and it is structured logically from core function to constraints.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and output summary adequately. It does not detail error handling or exact response format, but the agent has enough information to call the tool correctly. The limitation warning about stablecoins is critical and provided.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the mint parameter with an example and caveat. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly stating the mint requirement and warning about stablecoins having too many accounts. This extra context helps the agent understand when the tool is appropriate, exceeding the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Solana SPL token holder distribution / whale map' with specific output details (largest accounts up to 20, concentration metrics, buckets). It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling: 'More detailed than /v1/token-risk's single top-10 signal.' This is a specific verb-resource combination with clear sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear condition for use ('More detailed than /v1/token-risk') and an explicit exclusion ('Major stablecoins like USDC have too many accounts to snapshot'). It also states the required parameter (?mint=). However, it does not mention when to prefer alternatives beyond token-risk, leaving some ambiguity for other sibling tools.

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