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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral caveat ('No current quote or candle curve is implied') which prevents misinterpretation of the output. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, limits, or response format, so it only partially supplements the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the main function first. The second sentence clarifies a critical limitation (no quote/candle curve). This is effective and efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of contextual completeness.

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 the tool's complexity (19 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is far too sparse. It only mentions the broad output categories (identity, posts, activity counts) and one exclusion, but does not explain the many filter options, mode differences, cursor pagination, or projection levels. An agent with only this description would have significant uncertainty about how to use the tool correctly.

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 only 58%, meaning many of the 19 parameters lack explanatory text. The description adds no parameter-level guidance whatsoever. Given this low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters like asset_id, date ranges, mode, or filters, but it does not, leaving agents to rely on a partially documented schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('asset identity, compact posts and whole-window activity counts'), which clearly conveys the tool's scope. The additional sentence clarifying that no current quote or candle curve is implied helps distinguish it from price-related siblings like get_price_context and get_market_history, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other siblings, nor any conditions for choosing it over alternatives like get_posts or get_author. It lacks both explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the tool name and vague description.

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