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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds interpretive context the annotations cannot: prices are 'indexed' lowest asks, the comparison is an affordability signal rather than a valuation/forecast, and no trading occurs. It does not describe refresh cadence, pagination, or result shape, but an output schema exists for that.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by scope limits and interpretation caveats. 'No trading.' is terse but relevant; there is no filler or restated boilerplate.

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 2-param read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and interpretive limits adequately. Gaps remain on the origin of slugs (project slugs from search_projects vs. other identifiers) and the role of budget_eth, both of which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implies the 'up to ten' bound (already in the schema via maxItems: 10) and says nothing about budget_eth — whether it filters, caps, or merely annotates results — nor where slugs come from.

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 (compare), resource (project lowest asking prices), unit (ETH/WETH), and scope cap (up to ten projects). No sibling tool performs price comparison, so an agent can place it immediately without needing an explicit alternative named.

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 fences off misuse ('Lowest ask is an affordability comparison, not intrinsic value or a return forecast. No trading.'), which is genuine when-not guidance. However it never states when to reach for this tool versus get_project or search_projects for single-project or discovery queries, leaving the routing to inference.

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