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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds valuable behavioral details: the tool is free by default, intended as an onboarding aid to verify connectivity, latency, and output schema validity before paid pipelines. This is useful context about cost and intended usage that annotations do not convey.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then provides usage guidance and free-tier context. It is reasonably compact, though 'FREE ONBOARDING TOOL' and 'Zero payment required by default' are slightly redundant. Overall, every sentence contributes to agent decision-making.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what not to use it for, and the free/payment context. An agent has all necessary information to decide whether to call it and what to expect. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already structured.

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?

The input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameters, and it avoids introducing false expectations about arguments. It focuses appropriately on tool behavior and use cases rather than fabricated parameter details.

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 identifies the tool's function: evaluating token unlock schedules, vesting cliffs, and VC/team dump pressure relative to circulating supply. It goes beyond a vague statement by specifying the resource (token unlock schedules) and the risk metric (supply overhang). It also distinguishes itself from intra-day-focused tools through its mid-to-long term positioning context.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before taking mid-to-long term positions') and provides a clear when-not case ('Do not use for intra-day slippage or real-time transaction simulation'). It stops short of naming specific alternative sibling tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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