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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely non-structured context: pricing at $0.03/call over x402 on Base, the prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, one free call/day, and no API key. That is real operational information an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of describing output shape or latency, so not a 5.

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-loads the core purpose before pricing, and the pricing/auth sentences carry necessary information. Slight marketing flavor ('the analysis others skip') costs a little, but nothing is redundant with the schema.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it fully covers what an agent needs to call it: the required input, the cost/payment model, the auth alternatives, and the analytical distinction it delivers. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the structured field already documents 'address' fully. The description merely restates 'Required input: address' without adding format, chain, or validation semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it classifies a token's holder base into benign infrastructure (LP/CEX/bridge) versus dangerous unlabelled wallets, and explicitly frames itself against the naive 'top-10 = X%' metric. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like holders, holder_overlap, or dump_risk without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when this analysis is valuable ('separating benign from dangerous concentration is the analysis others skip') and contrasts it with shallow concentration metrics. However, it never names a competing sibling tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so the routing signal is implied rather than stated.

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