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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: that the response is only a masked skill teaser equivalent to the wallet lookup, and that identity resolution is gated behind sign-in on polyrank.app. It still does not sketch the concrete fields returned, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the lookup action and its id provenance, followed by return/auth caveats. The phrase 'masked' is repeated several times and 'the wallet lookup' references a sibling without naming it, which costs a bit of precision but no real bloat.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: where the tid comes from, what class of result comes back, and the limit of what it can resolve. A brief note on the response shape or on choosing between this and the tid-resolution/calibration siblings would close the remaining 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes tid as an opaque id from a masked row, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by naming the exact source surfaces (leaderboard, pulse, movers, top-ROI) an agent must harvest the tid from, which is operational meaning the schema does not carry.

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 and resource ('look up a trader by the opaque masked id') and pins down the origin of the id across leaderboard/pulse/movers/top-ROI surfaces. It distinguishes itself conceptually from a 'wallet lookup' but never names the actual sibling tools (e.g. polyrank_resolve_tid, polyrank_get_trader_skill), so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use: you have a tid from a masked row and those surfaces omit the raw wallet. It also hints at the escalation path (full identity resolution requires signing in), though it does not explicitly say when to prefer polyrank_resolve_tid or the calibration-by-tid sibling instead.

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