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

Annotations only say readOnly + openWorld. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses that responses are signed, that calls cost $0.005 USDC via x402 on Base or Solana, and that data is refreshed daily so revised dates are visible. The paid, signed nature of the call is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the resource and payload before the operational details (query mode, signing, price). Every clause carries information; the only mild sprawl is the list of covered providers.

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?

With no output schema, the description does describe the returned fields (dates, floors, states, replacements), and it discloses cost and signing. However, it leaves the parameter surface largely unexplained, which is a real gap given 0% schema coverage on three inputs.

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 0% with three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the model= parameter and loosely gestures at platform-level differences, but 'days' is never explained and 'platform' is never described as a filter or its accepted values. Two of three parameters remain opaque.

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 (retirement calendar for AI models) and enumerates the exact payload: shutdown dates, 'not sooner than' floors, states, recommended replacements, and the source pages. The added note that 'the same model often retires on different dates on different platforms' further pins down the scope and separates it from siblings like ai_changes or ai_prices.

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?

It hints at two query modes ('One model with model=, or upcoming shutdowns') but never states when to prefer this tool over the neighbouring ai_changes/ai_prices tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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