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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real semantic context beyond field names — history is cumulative-to-date per day, as_of is the age of a 7-day grade, last_warning_at timestamps the last warning — but it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it costs quota or is rate-limited, or why an unknown pair returns ok:false.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single run-on sentence of nested parentheticals listing dozens of fields, several of which (GPA, outlook, KG fill, t_grade) are unexplained labels. It is dense enough that an agent must re-read it to parse the payload, and the closing mine_next clause is bolted on without connection to the rest.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must enumerate the return payload — and it does so thoroughly, including the newer coverage and bti sections and the mine_next follow-up handle. Given the tool's breadth, it is adequately complete; only the opaque field names and undefined concepts (NightWatch, KG) leave small gaps.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including accepted exchange formats and the pair_not_found failure mode. The description only restates "Requires: exchange, symbol", adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("ONE-call token intelligence") and enumerates the concrete payload: rating/grade, per-venue grades, warnings, coverage L1-L8, bti per-strategy verdicts. The aggregate framing is clear, but it never names overlapping siblings such as get_token_research, get_unanimous, get_warnings or get_pair_gate, so the agent cannot tell where this tool stops and those begin.

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?

"Call this FIRST before deciding what to do with a token" gives an explicit trigger and ordering versus other work. It stops short of exclusions or named alternatives — no statement of when to prefer the narrower sibling tools or when this bundle is overkill.

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