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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses the paid-builder estimate-first workflow, the signer boundary (hosted builders never receive keypair bytes), and that value-moving results must be finalized locally. The deprecated/legacy framing further clarifies expected behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 first sentence delivers the most critical fact (deprecated, use X instead) with zero waste, and the second sentence adds scope and the modern alternative's advantages. The trailing 'SAP MCP execution guidance' block is useful for a paid builder but reads as boilerplate repeated across SAP tools and is duplicated inside the schema description in slightly modified form, which costs it a 5.

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?

For a deprecated tool, this is complete: it routes to replacements, declares the legacy scope, describes the hosted-unsigned-builder behavior, and covers the paid workflow and signer boundary. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so nothing needed to use or avoid this tool is missing. Minor gap: no explanation of what 'DBC-only initial-buy' concretely does (token buys but not sells), though the comparison with the modern tool implies it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema's parameter descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'Amount value to use for sap perpspad build dbc dev buy', 'Slippage Bps pagination control for sap perpspad build dbc dev buy') — they restate the tool name and add no meaning. The parameter names themselves (poolAddress, owner, amount, slippageBps, latestBlockhash) are self-descriptive, and the 'DBC-only initial-buy builder' framing implies their roles, but the description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Legacy DBC-only initial-buy builder') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming both the direct replacement (sap_steve_launch_build_dbc_dev_buy) and the recommended modern tool (sap_meteora_build_launchpad_trade). The deprecated-alias status is front and center, so an agent cannot confuse this with the active builders.

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 instructs 'use sap_steve_launch_build_dbc_dev_buy' for the alias and 'New integrations must use sap_meteora_build_launchpad_trade', naming precise alternatives with the conditions that select them. It also provides execution routing (estimate first, pay via sap_payments_call_paid_tool if x402 unsupported) — nothing is left to inference.

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