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

Despite annotations covering safety, the description adds substantial behavior: baseline snapshot, 10-minute POST cadence, HMAC-signed deliveries with secret returned once, up to 3 retries, 30-day expiry, and the payment/auth model. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 ('Get alerted the moment liquidity is pulled') before mechanics. Slightly dense with metric/price/retry details stacked together, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 paid, webhook-driven monitoring tool, the description covers trigger definition, cadence, delivery guarantees, expiry, auth, and pricing. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and nothing essential to correct invocation appears 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 schema already documents `token`, `webhook`, `dropPct` (default 50) and `check`. The description reinforces `token` as required and the omit-webhook-to-poll pattern but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 action ('watch a Base token's liquidity' and 'get alerted the moment liquidity is pulled') and explicitly distinguishes itself from price-moving tools ('Not price moving — the pool being drained out from under you'). This lets an agent separate it from siblings like price_alert or token_momentum.

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 operational context: required input is `token`, omit `webhook` to poll, and payment options (x402 per call vs. prepaid x-credit-token header, no free tier). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g. rug_score, lp_lock) for agents comparing monitoring vs. static risk checks, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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