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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context beyond that: the data is aggregate public market data, not per-identity ranking and not user-scoped. It stops short of saying how many tokens come back or whether results are cached/refreshed, which matters for a leaderboard.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the ranking definition, then the parameter semantics, then the scope exclusion. The final sentence about `get_my_` tools is a deliberate disambiguation rather than padding, and every sentence changes how the tool would be invoked.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is envelope-level: result count/limit and whether the ranking is time-windowed are unstated, which affects interpretation of the output. Otherwise complete for a 2-parameter read tool.

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 carries the burden, and it does: `holder_type` is given a default and a concrete meaning for each of its two enum values. `network` is never mentioned, but it is a `const: solana` with a default and needs no elaboration. The semantic gap is effectively closed for the one non-trivial parameter.

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 resource and metric: tokens ranked by aggregate USD held, with the two possible holder populations named inline. It also draws a hard boundary against person-vs-person rankings and against user-owned portfolio tools. It loses a point because the closest sibling, get_kol_top_held, is never mentioned, so the agent must infer which of the two 'top held' leaderboards applies.

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?

Explicitly maps each enum value to an intent question: `holder_type=whale` (default) for 'what are whales piling into', `holder_type=user` for 'what do Moby users collectively hold most of'. It also states a when-not: this is not the user's own wallet, and routes that need to the `get_my_*` family by name pattern. Little is left to inference for the primary use decision.

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