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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: this is a trimmed preview returning a count plus top-3 hits with named fields (grade, GO, fuel vs BTC, room), and that shapes are forward-graded markers, not advice. It stops short of stating freshness, caching, or how the 'same gate' is applied.

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 opening question is a reasonable hook, but the next sentence restates the same idea in near-duplicate form ('The crypto book's set-up scan: the coins showing a washed set-up shape, weighed against the same gate'), and 'SETUP scan PREVIEW' repeats it a third time. Jargon such as 'washed set-up shape', 'the same gate', 'GO' and 'fuel vs BTC' is used without definition, costing space without adding comprehension.

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?

Return content and the descriptive-not-advice caveat are covered, which matters given there is no output schema. But for a preview tool sitting next to a _live twin, the description never clarifies the relationship or the difference in output richness, and it leaves key vocabulary undefined.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.

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 makes clear this is a crypto set-up scan preview: 'how many of the 81 Robinhood-tradable coins currently show one of the two washed-shape SETUP patterns, plus the top-3 hits by grade.' That is a specific verb+resource with scope. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_crypto_setups_live, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Crypto SETUP scan PREVIEW' and 'A live trimmed slice of the full crypto scan' suggest this is the smaller/free version of a fuller scan, and 'Free' hints at a cost boundary. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of get_crypto_setups_live or get_crypto_trend, and no exclusions.

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