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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals ordering (newest first), inclusion criteria (source-stated date, reported victim loss, accountable source), duplicate handling (merged), data provenance (reported losses may change), and explicit exclusions (no user impact or recovery info). This is exceptional transparency for a simple list tool.

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 concise sentences, each carrying unique value: what it returns, filtering rules, data reliability caveat, and usage guidance. The core purpose is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition. Every sentence 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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the output format, limitations, filtering, and data caveats. The only parameter is fully documented in the schema. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, as the 'days' parameter already has a complete description in the input schema (default 30, max 90). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. No compensation is needed because the schema fully defines it.

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?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List recent crypto hacks and exploits that Truedge tracks.' It also specifies output format (one line per incident with reported loss, date, URL) and use cases that clearly differentiate it from the sibling check tools. This is a model example of purpose clarity.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use it to answer... or to check whether a protocol was recently exploited') and states a key limitation ('it does not say whether a user was affected or how to recover funds'). However, it never names alternative sibling tools or tells the agent when to prefer them, so it falls short of a 5.

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