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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the underlying method ("Scans Transfer events to identify the largest net receivers"), telling the agent how the ranking is derived rather than just what it returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the method, then the routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no padding or repetition.

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 analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, method, and alternative routing, so return values needn't be explained. It is essentially complete; only minor gaps (e.g., no hint about ordering/limit behavior) remain, which the schema largely covers.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (including chain enum values and the address as an ERC20 contract). The description's phrases "by recent accumulation" and "largest net receivers" add framing but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ("Analyze top token holders by recent accumulation") and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming wallet.report and token.price as the wrong tools for those jobs. An agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ("token-holder concentration and recent net accumulation") and when-not-to-use with named alternatives (wallet.report for a wallet, token.price for a price). Nothing is left to inference.

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