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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail: sort names are chain-dependent and an invalid one is answered with the allowed list rather than failing silently. It does not discuss rate limits or result sizing beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two tight sentences: what the board is first, then the chain-specific sort caveat. Front-loaded and free of 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned columns, and the sort/chain caveats plus the chord_chains pointer cover the main pitfalls. Minor gaps remain (no pagination hints, though limit is documented in 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: sort tokens vary per chain and errors reveal the permitted values. That extra semantic guidance on the sort parameter earns it above baseline.

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 the specific resource (24h token board) and enumerates the returned fields (price, volume, trades, change), which separates it from the singular chord_token. It never explicitly names the sibling it differs from, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by '24h token board' and it points to chord_chains for chain capabilities, plus explains that a bad sort key returns the allowed list. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-chord_token or chord_candles guidance.

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