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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them — x402 pricing on Base ($0.02/call), a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, 1 free call/day, and no API key required. It does not discuss latency, error modes, or multi-chain scope, keeping it short of 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-loaded with the triggering question, then output contents, then commercial terms — each sentence carries information. The pricing/payment sentence is dense but earns its place since it is not available elsewhere; only the aphoristic 'moment a rug becomes possible' is arguably flavor.

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 no prose, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the input requirement, the calendar semantics, the audience, and the full payment/access model, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it; 'Required input: address' merely restates the required field without adding format, chain, or validation detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 resource (LP unlock schedule) and output (forward calendar with date, % freed, locker, days away), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the raw 'lp_lock' sibling by framing itself as the transform of raw LP-lock data into a calendar. Clear, though it never names the sibling it supersedes, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Offers a use-case trigger ('is a cliff coming?') and audience ('For agents managing open positions'), which implies when to reach for it. It names no alternatives (e.g. lp_lock, rug_monitor, rug_score) and gives no when-not guidance, so routing between the several risk/lock tools is left to inference.

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