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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the parameter behavior (optional segment filtering). It does not contradict the annotations, but also does not enrich them with details like output format or data freshness.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a compact Args list. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. No improvement is possible without adding length.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics adequately. It does not mention return value format or define 'weekly' (e.g., calendar week vs. trailing 7 days), which would be helpful, but the simplicity of the tool keeps the missing context from being a major 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section does explain that segment is an optional segment name, adding some meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it does not clarify what a segment is, valid values, or the effect of filtering, leaving the parameter semantics only partially specified.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('weekly aggregated BTC holdings'), and an optional filter ('by segment'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like daily or current holdings. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for retrieving weekly aggregated data, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over the daily or current variants. No alternative tools are named, so the guidance is implied rather than stated. The context is clear from the name and sibling tools, but not articulated.

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