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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond that with the cost model ($0.03 per call over x402 on Base), the auth path (prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier, no API key), and the data origin (CDP-indexed events, active vs ended feed). These are exactly the non-schema behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking.

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 read operation is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but there is redundancy — 'issuer notices, corporate actions, redemptions' echoes the opening 'issuer notices & corporate actions' — and the em-dash stacking makes it denser than needed.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — what it reads, from where, what it costs, what auth it needs, and what input it requires — is all stated, so an agent can call this correctly without opening anything else.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% ('B20 Asset token address'), so the schema fully documents it. The description's 'Required input: address' merely restates the schema without adding format, constraints, or validation detail.

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 — 'Reads a token's announcement feed (active vs ended) from CDP-indexed events' — and defines the underlying primitive (Announcement: id, description, uri) with examples (issuer notices, corporate actions, redemptions). It distinguishes itself from the ERC-20 baseline, though it never names the closest siblings (corporate_actions, rwa_dividend_feed) to differentiate.

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?

Frames itself as 'the issuer-communications primitive for agents holding tokenized/RWA B20 assets', which implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative to route against. Adequate context, no routing rules.

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