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

Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. Only behavioral trait disclosed is a cost of $0.03. No mention of read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. Inadequate for a tool that likely performs an API 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?

The description is very short (one sentence plus cost), but it omits critical information. Conciseness is positive, but here it sacrifices completeness, making it under-specified. Front-loaded with purpose, but lacks depth.

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 complexity of a correlation matrix tool and no output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the output format, how to interpret the matrix, or required authentication. Very insufficient for an agent to use 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 0%, yet description fails to explain any parameter. 'days', 'coins', and 'api_key' are not described. Default values are not mentioned. The description only says 'N days' which weakly hints at the 'days' parameter, but not its exact usage or format.

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?

Clearly states it computes a correlation matrix between coins over a number of days. The verb is implied and resource is explicit. However, the mention of 'top coins' could be misleading since users can specify any coins via the 'coins' parameter. Sibling tool 'compare_coins' might be seen as similar, but description differentiates by operation type.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_coins'. No scenario or context provided. The only hint is the cost, but that doesn't help with selection decision.

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