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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: an approximate payload size ('about 2 KB'), the presence of data-quality counts, and the fact that revenue_figures carries both an annualized pace and LTM revenue with P/S on each. It omits any statement about freshness/caching of the underlying data, which keeps it off a 5.

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-loaded with the key framing ('One token in about 2 KB'), and every listed item is a real return field with no output schema to duplicate it. The downside is that the contents enumeration is one very long run-on sentence with parenthetical nesting, which costs scannability.

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 and only one parameter, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does so thoroughly and specifically, enough that an agent can decide whether the digest covers the fields it needs. Nothing material for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Token slug, e.g. geodnet.'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about slug format, resolution behavior, or aliasing (tc_resolve exists as a sibling), which is the baseline-3 case when the 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?

The description names the specific resource (one token) and enumerates exactly what the digest contains — price, valuation, revenue and flows, changes, health score, unlocks, lens, data-quality counts. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tc_get_token, so an agent can route between the two 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?

It gives an explicit preference rule: 'Prefer this over tc_get_token.' That is clear alternative-selection guidance. It stops short of the inverse condition (when tc_get_token is the better choice) and doesn't address other plausible siblings like tc_get_report or tc_brief, so it is not a full 5.

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