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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the compact/lightweight scope and enumerates returned content, but with an output schema present it need not explain returns; the added behavioral value is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and purpose. The parenthetical schema reference is slightly cluttering but the sentence still earns its place without padding.

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 1-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, content scope, and a light usage cue. It is nearly sufficient, with only explicit sibling routing 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 'asset' parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Actif, ex. BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB.'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 resource ('snapshot compact de l'arène') and enumerates its contents (capital, leaders, méta). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling arena_leaderboard by positioning itself as the lightweight alternative ('sans télécharger tout le leaderboard'), which an agent can act on.

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?

'utile pour un briefing agent' hints at when to use it, and the contrast with downloading the full leaderboard implies arena_leaderboard is the heavier alternative. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over arena_leaderboard, explore_arena, or community_arena_rankings, leaving selection to inference.

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