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

Annotations provide 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by emphasizing performance considerations with 'jq_filter' and noting the response is in BTC, which aren't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, which could be important for a query tool. No contradiction with annotations exists, as the description's 'query' aligns with read-only behavior.

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 relatively concise, with two main parts: usage advice for 'jq_filter' and the core purpose statement. However, it includes an unnecessary output schema snippet that duplicates information better handled in a structured field, and the formatting with markdown and code blocks adds clutter. The key information is front-loaded, but the structure could be cleaner by removing redundant schema details.

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 tool's complexity (querying historical data with multiple parameters), annotations cover read-only safety, and schema coverage is high at 75%. The description adds some context like BTC units and performance tips, but lacks output details (no output schema provided) and doesn't fully explain behavioral aspects like data format or limitations. It's adequate for basic use but leaves gaps in fully guiding the agent, especially without output schema support.

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 75%, with parameters 'id', 'from', and 'to' having descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'starting date in UNIX timestamp'), while 'jq_filter' is well-documented in both schema and description. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mainly reiterating the date range aspect and advising on 'jq_filter' usage. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already structured.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'query the historical volume chart data in BTC by specifying date range in UNIX based on exchange's ID'. This specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('historical volume chart data'), and key constraints (BTC units, date range in UNIX, exchange ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_coins_market_chart' or 'get_exchanges_tickers', which might also involve exchange or chart data, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is uniquely appropriate.

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 provides implied usage guidance: it mentions using the 'jq_filter' parameter to reduce response size and improve performance, and advises omitting it only if sure the data isn't needed. This gives some context on parameter usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to sibling tools like 'get_exchanges_tickers' or 'get_range_coins_market_chart'), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the purpose alone.

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