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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: this is whole-market public data rather than user-scoped data, which prevents a common misroute. It does not discuss pagination or result size, which keeps it short of 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?

The differentiating behavior is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries routing information. The all-caps emphasis (WHALES, GROUPED BY WHALE LIST, UNGROUPED, NOT, get_my_) is slightly noisy but does aid scanning.

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 values need not be explained, and the population/grouping semantics are fully covered. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail on the required token_address, which the description leaves entirely to the schema.

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% and the description never mentions token_address or network, so neither field gains any meaning beyond its bare name. The agent must infer that token_address is a Solana mint address and that network is fixed to solana from the const alone.

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 (tracked whales holding a token) plus the key differentiator: results are GROUPED BY WHALE LIST. It also names the sibling that returns the same population ungrouped, so an agent can pick between them without reading 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?

Explicit when-to-use criterion is given: 'use this when the question is which KIND of whale is in this'. It names the alternative (get_token_key_holders) and the excluded scope (not the user's own wallet/holdings), pointing to the get_my_ prefix convention for personal data.

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