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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: badges are 'reviewed' (real X account with reach, wallets proven on-chain), entries are ordered 'newest badge first', and each entry contains specific fields (X handle, followers, verified wallets, 7-day activity). It stops short of describing exact response structure, but with an output schema present that is acceptable.

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-loads the core resource definition, then example queries, then the sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Complete for a read-only paginated list tool. Annotations cover safety, output schema covers the response format, the description covers scope, ordering, and field content, and the sibling relationship to get_leaderboard is explicitly handled.

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 all three parameters (chain, limit, cursor) are fully documented in the schema. The description lists the valid chain values again, which is repetition rather than added meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns KOLs with verified CabalSpy ID badges. It also distinguishes itself from the most likely confused sibling, get_leaderboard, by naming it explicitly for performance rankings.

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 is given with example queries ('Which KOLs are verified on Base?' or to get wallets of verified influencers), and the alternative for performance rankings is named. This is the full when/when-not guidance requested.

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