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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data source, pagination). Given annotations, description's lack of addition is acceptable but not helpful.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loads the action and resource. Highly concise.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format is documented elsewhere. Description covers the core function but could add context on typical usage (e.g., 'Use for charting historical trends'). Given tool complexity (4 params, 2 enums), description is minimal but meets basic needs.

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 has 100% description coverage with enums for interval and format. Description does not supplement parameter meaning (e.g., no explanation of when to use 'timeseries' vs 'ohlcv'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb-resource pair: 'Get price history' for 'cryptocurrency'. Distinguishes from siblings like crypto.price.current and crypto.market.overview by specifying historical data.

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?

Description implies it's for historical price data, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., crypto.price.current for current, crypto.market.overview for market metrics). No when-not-to-use or context.

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