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

Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior. The description adds non-obvious details: cost of $0.02, tweet text not redistributed, the presence of accuracy record and velocity metrics. This contextualizes the returned data beyond what annotations provide.

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 verbose with marketing language ('The social×price join only RobinX has') and repeated cost notice ('paid $0.02 — see instructions'). It could be trimmed for clarity and brevity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates several output fields (early_rate, median 1h price move, cluster flag, truncation flag, hourly velocity, first mention, voice counts). It also mentions cost and data handling. This gives a fairly complete picture of what the tool returns.

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?

Only one parameter 'token' with schema description 'Token contract address 0x…'. Description does not add further parameter semantics; it only mentions the token. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is adequate.

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 retrieves the latest 200 X mentions of a token with associated metrics. It specifies the verb 'get' implicitly and the resource 'mentions'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the unique data join suggests distinct purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like robinx_social_momentum or robinx_feed. The description mentions cost and data limitations but lacks explicit use cases or exclusions.

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