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

The description describes registering persistent alerts, POSTing to webhooks, charging $0.05 per call, and expiring after 30 days, all of which imply side effects on the environment. The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which indicates the tool does not modify state or resources. This is a direct contradiction and would mislead an agent about the tool's side-effect profile.

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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanics, expiry, alternate polling mode, verdicts, pricing, and auth requirements. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly heavy formatting and pricing details could be organized better, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The description covers both operational modes, required and optional parameters, expected verdicts, expiration behavior, pricing, and authentication requirements. Even with an output schema present, the description provides enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in either register or poll mode. No critical usage detail is missing.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds useful nuances like 'USD' for threshold, 'https' for webhook, and the check=<id> polling pattern, but it mostly restates what the schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries most of the weight.

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 states a specific action and resource: registering a price-threshold alert on a Base token and firing a webhook when the price crosses the target. It clearly distinguishes this from passive price tools by outlining both registration and polling modes. The verb+resource structure makes the tool's purpose immediately evident.

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?

It gives clear usage context: supply token, threshold, direction, and an HTTPS webhook, or omit webhook and poll with check=<id>. It also lists required inputs and notes that no wallet or API key is needed. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like token_price or multi_price, so the when-not-to-use boundary is left implicit.

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