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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by naming the output fields and showing an invocation example, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or ordering of returned holders.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful concrete example. The example is somewhat redundant with the schema examples, but it still earns its place by showing a full invocation with all parameters. No unnecessary filler is present.

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 that there is no output schema, the description helpfully lists the return fields, which is important for an agent planning to consume the result. All required parameters and their meanings are covered by the schema, and the example clarifies call formatting. It could be more complete by mentioning ordering, but the tool is simple and the description is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a concrete example and clarifies that the address is the token contract/mint address, which is helpful but not strictly required. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 is specific and actionable: it states that the tool returns the largest wallet holders of a token, with the exact fields provided (owner address, token amount, and share of supply). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling Birdeye tools focused on overview, trades, or gainers/losers by focusing on holder distribution.

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 implies usage when an agent needs top token holders, and the example reinforces the expected call shape. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like birdeye_token_overview or birdeye_token_trades, nor does it mention exclusions or boundary conditions.

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