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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the underlying method (scanning Transfer events) and that results are net receivers ranked by recent accumulation, which tells the agent the output is derived and time-windowed rather than a snapshot balance. It does not state the recency window or scan limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentences, each earning its place: definition, method, and routing exclusions. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the method, the intended question type, and the sibling alternatives — everything an agent needs to select and call this 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 100% — chain, limit and address are all documented in the schema (including the chain enum and limit bounds). The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as what 'recent' means in time or how limit interacts with the accumulation ranking. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and clarifies the mechanism ('Scans Transfer events to identify the largest net receivers'). Explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings wallet.profile and token.price, so an agent can route without opening any 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 both positive framing ('Use for token-holder concentration and recent net accumulation') and an explicit exclusion with named alternatives ('Do not use it for a wallet's portfolio or token price; use wallet.profile or token.price'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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