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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds substantial context the annotations don't: pricing ($0.75/call over x402 on Base), prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier, no API key required, and what the synthesized output contains. These are real behavioral facts beyond structured fields, though the orchestration internals and latency are not disclosed.

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 purpose and coverage list are front-loaded, but the middle section is padded with marketing ('premium flagship', 'the value is the orchestration + AI synthesis you can't get anywhere else') that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke. The critical pricing/auth note is buried mid-paragraph.

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 report tool with an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description covers what it does, what it returns conceptually, and the billing/auth mechanism. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the role of the optional 'size' param is left implicit.

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 both params (address, size) are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only calls out that 'address' is required and doesn't explain what 'size' does or how omitting it affects the exit-liquidity check, which is the one place extra meaning would help.

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: a full institutional due-diligence report on a Base token, and enumerates what's covered (contract risk, holders, liquidity, exit liquidity, OFAC, AI verdict). It is clearly distinct from narrower siblings like token_risk, exit_liquidity, or sanctions, but it never names an alternative tool to contrast with directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'premium flagship / one call runs the FULL battery' framing and the pricing note makes it clear this is the heavy, paid option, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use token_risk when Y' guidance against the many sibling tools.

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