Unlocks for one token

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world lookup, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the 60-day window, the contents of the result, the found=0 semantics, the onchain_check handoff, and the effect of lang=ru on page links.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only necessary operational details: accepted token formats, found=0 behavior, conditional follow-up, and language handling. Every sentence contributes useful guidance.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the result contains, how absence of unlocks is represented, and when to call get_onchain_check. For a two-parameter read-only lookup, nothing material 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?

The token parameter is already described in the schema, but the description adds concrete examples (ARB, Arbitrum, arbitrum). It also explains lang behavior beyond the enum/default by stating that lang=ru returns Russian page links.

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 states a specific verb and resource: scheduled unlocks in the next 60 days for one token. It also scopes the tool to a single token and mentions return contents, which distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like get_upcoming_unlocks.

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?

It gives clear context for use, including acceptable token formats, the non-error found=0 outcome, and a conditional next step to call get_onchain_check. It does not explicitly compare against get_upcoming_unlocks or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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