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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive traits. The description adds return format (date, token, tokens unlocked, USD value with price time, share of supply, recipients) and the default window, which is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, examples, return fields, default window. Sentences are informative and no obvious waste, though the first sentence is dense.

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 read-only data-retrieval tool with a fully described schema and covering annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains return fields, scope, and default behavior. Lacking only explicit sibling routing, but that's a minor gap.

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 the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description repeats the date-window and min_usd example but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3.

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 resource and scope: a token unlock calendar from DefiLlama covering ~370 tokens, with vesting cliffs and emission-rate changes. Clear verb+resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling defi_token_emission.

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?

Provides example queries ('which token unlocks are scheduled this week', 'unlocks over $10M...') that imply usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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