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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the collision resolution policy (canonical Robinhood token wins) and lists the data returned. Missing details on error handling or rate limits, but still transparent about core behavior.

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, front-loaded with purpose and contents, then collision handling. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description lists all key return components (snapshot, trend, intel, whale transfers) and handles collision. Missing possible error responses, but adequate for agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical meaning: it explains the format (symbol or hex address) and provides examples (TSLA, CASHCAT). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('get full detail for one token') and resource ('by symbol or 0x address'), clearly stating the scope and content (snapshot, trend, intel, whale transfers). It differentiates from siblings by specifying it returns comprehensive data, unlike specialized tools like check_token_risk.

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 clearly indicates when to use (for comprehensive token detail), but does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives like other sibling tools. However, the context of being a single-token lookup is clear.

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