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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: family availability varies, source clocks are explicit, there are constrained interval/range pairings, and two definitional warnings (dividend yield is a decimal underlying yield, not distribution yield; supply is in token units not USD). It does not discuss response size or pagination, but the added caveats are substantive.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by constraints and caveats. The valid-windows list is dense but each item carries information. Slightly list-heavy but no wasted sentences.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what data families come back, the units/semantics of the trickier fields, and the valid query windows. Remaining gaps (response shape, per-family payload structure) are minor for a read tool.

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 only 33% (only symbol is documented in-schema), so the description must compensate — and it does, listing the valid interval/range windows and the 1hour/1month default. That cross-parameter constraint is not expressible in the enums alone, which is genuine added value.

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 opening sentence names specific verbs and resources: OHLC, dividends, shares-multiplier history, and per-chain token supply for Ondo assets. That distinguishes it from list_ondo_assets and get_ondo_asset (metadata), though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Usage is implied by the data families listed and the valid interval/range windows, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against get_ondo_asset, get_ondo_asset_stream, or list_ondo_assets. The agent must infer that this is the historical series tool.

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