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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists 'track record, latency, limits' without explaining whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what exactly the returned data represents. This is insufficient for responsible invocation.

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 but at the expense of clarity. It is under-specified, offering only a fragment rather than a coherent statement of function, similar to the 'Process' example.

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?

Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description needs to explain return structure and any caveats. It lists three data dimensions but doesn't describe their format, granularity, or how they relate, leaving the agent with insufficient information to predict the tool's response.

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?

The input schema fully describes the 'symbol' parameter with examples (USDC, USDT), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is a noun phrase ('Redemption track record, latency, limits') with no verb, making it unclear what action the tool performs. It vaguely suggests the tool provides redemption-related data but doesn't specify a clear resource or operation, and it doesn't articulate how it differs from siblings like peg_history or supply_flow.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no contextual clues, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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