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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool reads from the chain back to the token's first block, and it may return a 'reading' status requiring a retry. This async behavior is not in the annotations and is critical for correct invocation. The description doesn't mention rate limits or data volume, but the async retry note is a significant transparency win.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core output first, then the async behavior. Every sentence earns its place. The retry instruction is placed at the end, which is logical since it's a secondary but important detail. No fluff 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, single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what data is returned, the source (chain back to first block), and the async retry behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the exact response format beyond 'Returns json' and the 'reading' status, but since there's no output schema, a bit more detail on the JSON structure could help. Still, the description is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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 the single 'address' parameter. The description adds context that the address is a token contract on Robinhood Chain, which reinforces the schema's pattern. However, it doesn't add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no mention of checksum format or how to obtain the address). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: identifying top holders of a token, with specific attributes (wallet age, entry, launch bundle, snipers, deployer, winning wallets). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_token or smart_money by focusing on holder analysis. The verb 'returns' and resource 'top holders' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need holder distribution and wallet-level insights for a token. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the detailed scope (holders, snipers, deployer) makes the use case clear. The async note ('ask again half a minute later') provides practical usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like smart_money or winners, which could overlap.

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