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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: pricing ($0.02/call), quota (1 free call/day), network (Base), auth requirements (no wallet/API key), and the semantic significance ('the moment a rug becomes possible').

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 front-loaded with the value proposition and output semantics, then business details. The pricing sentence is dense but decision-relevant for a paid tool. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every section earns its place.

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-value documentation is already handled. The description covers the problem domain, output semantics, use case, required input, network, cost, and access — nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it 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 coverage is 100% — the schema already documents address as 'Token contract address'. The description merely restates 'Required input: address' without adding any meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 transformation — 'Turns raw LP-lock data into a forward calendar' — with concrete output fields (date, % of LP freed, locker, days away, imminent-unlock flag). It differentiates from the sibling lp_lock tool by framing this as the forward/scheduled view, not raw lock data.

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?

The description gives clear context: 'For agents managing open positions' and frames the trigger question 'is a cliff coming?', which tells an agent when this risk-calendar tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as lp_lock or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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