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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false with no explanation. The description supplies the missing behavior context: the request is non-destructive but has no immediate effect, is reviewed by a human, carries a 10/hour/IP limit, and counts repeat asks within 24h once — which is exactly the meaning behind the idempotency hint.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Free: ask ...' and every subsequent clause earns its place (covered list, outcome, caveat, rate limit). It is dense and somewhat run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return expectation by explaining the request is merely logged for review and not guaranteed. Combined with the covered-asset allowlist and rate/dedup limits, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and set user expectations.

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 all three parameters (symbol, agent, reason) and their length constraints are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or usage nuance for the optional agent/reason fields, 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+resource ('ask cryptofeed402 to consider monitoring a coin it does not cover yet') and immediately scopes it with the currently covered set (BTC, ETH, SOL, HYPE, NEAR, AAVE). This distinguishes it cleanly from every sibling, which are all read-only 'get_*' retrieval tools.

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?

Explicitly defines when to use it (a coin not yet covered), what the outcome is (logged for human review, high-demand assets may be added later), and the exclusion ('Not a guarantee'). Rate limit and dedup rules are stated as concrete operating conditions rather than left to inference.

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