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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context: the content is verbatim text sourced from btcintel.org/intel-dca/, which tells an agent this is a static reference rather than a computed or account-specific result. It stops short of describing response shape or size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the source first and then the payload, with no filler or restatement of the tool name. Every clause carries information about what comes back.

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 one-optional-parameter static reference lookup with no output schema, the description covers source, scope, and included sections (per-plan behavior and the ladder notes). Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the text is trimmed or how large the payload is.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter already documents that all three plans are returned when omitted. The description repeats the three plan names but adds no syntax, formatting, or filtering semantics 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?

The description names the specific resource (the public Intel DCA ladder) and enumerates exactly what it contains: per-plan payday behavior at each Score level plus the ladder notes. That is far more concrete than the title alone and is clearly distinct from the score/read siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no named alternative among get_live_score, get_delayed_score, get_market_read, or get_brief. The use case is only implied by the content description (fetch this to explain how a plan behaves on payday), which is enough for an agent to infer but not to be routed confidently.

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