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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that the data is public market data about the whole market, not user-specific information, which helps prevent misuse. It does not discuss idempotency or the non-idempotent annotation, leaving a minor gap.

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 core purpose and then efficiently covers sibling alternatives and the public-data scope. Every sentence adds useful routing or scope information without unnecessary padding.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations already establish safety. It fully addresses tool selection and data scope, but it leaves the input parameters underspecified given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only implies that exactly one token is targeted, but does not explain the `token_address` format, required status, or that `network` is constrained to `solana`. The schema itself contains bare fields with no descriptive 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: an aggregate holder-distribution summary for one token, in bucketed concentration form. It explicitly distinguishes itself from similar token-holder siblings and clarifies that it covers public market data rather than the user's own wallet.

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?

It names the alternatives explicitly: `get_token_holders` for itemised top holders and `get_token_key_holders` for tracked whales/KOLs. It also provides a clear negative rule: tools prefixed with `get_my_` return the user's own data, so this tool should not be used for personal holdings.

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