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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further: served from the index, a few seconds stale, costs 1 unit, only a quota error possible, unknown query returns an empty list, and flagged (unsellable/taxing) tokens are filtered out. It also explains quietMinutes semantics, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single dense paragraph but front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return shape, then behavior/errors. Given there is no output schema, the long field enumeration with parentheticals (e.g. quietMinutes staleness) all 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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself, listing tokens[] fields and the leadersWindowSeconds alternative response, plus cost, freshness, filtering, and error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: omitting query yields the whole list 'busiest first,' and leadersWindowSeconds switches the response to mostTraded[]/highestVolume[] rather than the token list. That response-shape change is genuinely beyond the schema text.

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 verb and resource with scope: 'Lists the tokens that traded in the last day, from LoomDesk's own index of every swap on the chain.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ladder_pools and my_ladders, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 the use case ('picking a token or looking one up by symbol, name or address'), names the alternative for pools (ladder_pools), and states an exclusion ('Not for a wallet's holdings (my_ladders)'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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