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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful data-scope context (public tables, entity-level rows rather than wallets), but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or freshness, so with annotations doing the heavy lifting a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its filters front-loaded before the usage caveat.

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 read-only fetch with a full output schema, fully documented parameters, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose and scope adequately. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor omissions like result ordering or row semantics.

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 description coverage is 100% and the enum-like allowed values are fully documented in the schema, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description names the three filters but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch entity rows from CoinGecko's public crypto-treasury tables') and names the filtering facets. It also distinguishes the data from a related-but-different concept ('not individual wallets'), so an agent can tell what this returns.

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 states the intended use case — comparing publicly listed treasury holders — and explicitly rules out individual wallets. There is no direct sibling to route to, but the when-not guidance is present and clear.

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