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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: the call is a time-bounded live collection (max 10 s), which explains both the blocking nature and why the operation is non-idempotent. It does not mention rate limits or cost, so not a 5.

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 zero waste; the purpose and window constraint are front-loaded and the sibling routing comes last. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value explanation and does so ('returns all trades whose USD value meets minUsd'). For a read-only collection tool this is close to complete; the exact trade object shape is left unspecified, which keeps it from a 5.

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 every parameter is documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The description restates the minUsd filter and the 10 s cap but adds no format, default, or edge-case detail 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+resource ('collect whale trades on a pump.fun token') plus scope qualifiers (short window, USD threshold). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_token_trades, which the description names as the non-whale alternative.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('to see who is moving size on a coin right now') and names the alternative for the other case ('for the full recent tape call get_token_trades'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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