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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the batch limit (up to 25) and lists the return fields (level, sell test, live watch, reason), which is useful since no output schema exists. It does not discuss rate limits or auth needs, but those are less critical for a read-only screening call.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope, then adds return fields and usage guidance without any waste. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple batch read-only tool, the description gives the batch limit, return fields, and routing to the single-token sibling. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully covers the single parameter, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the single tokens parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 25-token maximum and Robinhood Chain context, but adds no new syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (check risk), resource (up to 25 Robinhood Chain tokens), and scope (one call), and names the sibling check_token_risk for deeper single-token inspection. An agent can distinguish this batch screening tool from the single-token sibling without opening 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?

Explicitly says it is good for screening a list before looking closer with check_token_risk, giving clear when-to-use and an alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for a single token), but the context is clear.

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