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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses all checks performed (honeypot, taxes, source verification, privileges, proxy, holder/LP counts, risk score, verdict) and notes it is a paid tool ($0.005). No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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?

Two sentences: first lists all audit aspects, second provides usage instruction and cost. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (risk score, verdict). Inputs are fully covered, and the tool's purpose is clear. Completes the picture for a safety audit tool.

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 describes both parameters (address, chain) with defaults and examples. Description adds context by specifying the required format and default chain (base), enhancing usability.

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 'Full rug/honeypot audit for a token' and enumerates specific checks (honeypot, taxes, source verification, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like snipe_honeypot and sol_rug_check by targeting EVM tokens with a comprehensive audit.

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 calls it 'the must-have pre-buy safety gate for any trading agent,' implying use before token purchase. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives explicitly, but context provides differentiation.

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