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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a read-only policy/reference tool there is little destructive behavior to disclose. It transparently previews the scope of content (checks, thresholds, refund rules, tracked-never-scored floor), giving the agent a real sense of what to expect without contradiction.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the resource and content list front-loaded and a closing action directive. Every clause contributes substance, though the parenthetical enumerations make it slightly heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description adequately previews the policy content an agent would retrieve. It is complete enough to call correctly, with minor room to reference the precheck sibling for complementary action.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 a specific resource (Coin Duel coin-listing policy) and enumerates exactly what content it returns: fee mechanics, a 7-check review, exact thresholds, refund rules, and the liquidity floor. It is clearly an informational/reference tool distinct from action tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like coinduel_rules or coinduel_listing_precheck.

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 usage trigger: 'Read this before submitting any coin,' which tells the agent when to call it. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g., coinduel_listing_precheck) or state when it is not needed, so routing is only partly supported.

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