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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false. The description adds real substance beyond that: it enumerates the return payload (max supply, allocation by category, per-recipient unlocked vs final, dated unlock events with USD value, methodology notes). That is useful context for what the agent can extract, though it doesn't flag rate limits or pagination/format details.

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?

Opinionated and broad, and vivid concrete example queries up front; the output enumeration is informative. Leading with 'One crypto token's full vesting/EMISSION SCHEDULE' is a good front-loaded lede. Slightly long but most sentences earn their 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?

The description describes the return payload in detail even though there's no output schema, which is exactly the right substitute. For a read-only, open-world lookup tool the remaining needs (rate limits, exact response shape) are minor.

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% and the single 'protocol' param is fully documented in the schema with examples and a close-match fallback note. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: returns one token's full vesting/emission schedule from DefiLlama, with concrete example queries. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling defi_token_unlocks (which presumably lists unlocks across tokens) because it scopes to a single protocol's supply schedule.

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 example queries ('Hyperliquid HYPE unlock schedule', 'when do Arbitrum team tokens vest') make the intended use case concrete. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling defi_token_unlocks as the alternative for cross-token unlock data, so exclusion rules are implied rather than stated.

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