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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a payload size budget ('about 1 KB') that signals a compact response, plus the full content inventory, letting the agent predict cost and coverage before calling.

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?

Front-loads the core identity ('One token in about 1 KB') then lists contents in one dense clause, closing with the routing directive. Every element earns its place, though the content enumeration is long for a single sentence.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly by naming each field group. It is complete for selection and invocation, with only minor gaps around response format and any staleness/refresh semantics.

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?

Only one parameter (slug) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's phrase 'One token' confirms the single-token scope but adds no format, aliasing, or resolution detail beyond the schema.

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 ('get' a 'token digest') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: price, valuation, revenue/flows, changes, health score pillars, unlocks, lens, quality counts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tc_get_token, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Names a concrete alternative with a preference directive ('Prefer this over tc_get_token'), which is clear routing guidance. It does not state the reciprocal condition — when an agent would want tc_get_token, tc_get_report, or tc_compare instead — so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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