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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful context by saying the price is aggregated across multiple oracle providers and manipulation-resistant, but it omits operational details like read-only nature, rate limits, default method, staleness handling, and what the returned payload contains.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler. The purpose comes first, followed by the practical use case, with no wasted wording.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description is adequate: it explains what the tool returns and why to use it. It could be more complete by noting default behavior for optional parameters or the shape of the returned price data, but it covers the essentials.

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%, and the schema documents all three parameters including enum values for 'chain' and 'method'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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'), a specific resource ('aggregated consensus price'), and the source scope ('across multiple oracle providers'). It distinguishes the tool from single-provider siblings like get_oracle_price by emphasizing multi-oracle aggregation.

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?

It gives a clear usage context ('robust, manipulation-resistant reference price') that tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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