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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real value beyond them: the full returned field set, the sort order ('verified first, then liquidity'), the semantics of the verified flag (mint on Jupiter's verified list), and cost ('Free'). It stops short of stating result limits, empty-result behavior, or rate limits, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the returned attributes before the workflow guidance, which is the right order, and every clause carries information. Minor redundancy between 'Candidates only: Golden Kog never picks one' and the later 'KOG is never a candidate' costs it the top score.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what comes back, how it is ordered, that it is a candidate list requiring human selection, and which sibling to call next.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the ticker format ('letters and digits, with or without $'). The description's 'WIF or $WIF' examples reinforce the $ prefix handling but add no new constraint beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a concrete resource and scope: 'The Solana tokens that carry a ticker such as WIF or $WIF', and enumerates exactly what each candidate carries (symbol, name, mint, liquidity USD, pool count, age, verified). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling analyze_token by declaring this returns candidates only and never picks a winner.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: show candidates to the person, let the person choose, then call analyze_token with that exact mint. It also states a negative condition ('never picks one and never analyses a ticker') and the 'KOG is never a candidate' exclusion, so there is no ambiguity about when to use it versus analyze_token.

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