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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is the disclosure that 'results are capped' and that a large result costs context for later steps — real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It stops short of stating what the cap actually is or how ranking ties are handled, which keeps it below 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 core purpose and sibling disambiguation before the operational caveats, and each sentence carries a distinct payload (scope, alternative, cost warning, user-data exclusion). The closing `get_my_` explanation is slightly redundant given the exhaustive sibling list but earns its place as a routing guard against a common confusion.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary. For a four-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, sibling routing, pagination discipline, result capping, and the user-vs-market data boundary — nothing an agent needs in order 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 50%: `page` and `limit` are documented in the schema, while `token_address` and the const `network` are not (the latter being self-evident). The description nonetheless adds decision-level meaning to both pagination params — when it is legitimate to raise `limit` or step `page` — which goes beyond the schema's mechanical '1-based page number' and 'keep it small.'

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 ('ALL top holders of this token') and immediately scopes it with 'not just the wallets Moby tracks,' which directly distinguishes it from the tracked subset. It then names the sibling `get_token_key_holders` and frames the relationship (subset vs. full concentration picture), so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for pagination ('raise `limit` or step `page` only if the answer is genuinely not in the first page'), names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, and adds a clear when-not: this is not about the user's own wallet, unlike `get_my_*` tools. Both the positive and negative routing conditions are stated rather than implied.

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