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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint cover the read-only nature, but the description itself adds no behavioral detail such as output characteristics, credential requirements, rate limits, or data sources. Behavioral transparency is left almost entirely to 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 description is extremely short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids wasted words, though it is terse to the point of being telegraphic.

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 deep scan tool with no output schema, no usage guidance, and an undocumented required mint parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what results the agent should expect or how this tool differs from related Orbitx scan tools.

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?

Only authCode has schema documentation; mint is a required string with no description. The tool description mentions holders/risks/flags but does not explain what mint should be or how these map to parameters, so it fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 purpose: a deep risk/xray scan of a token, with holders, risks, and flags. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like orbitx_get_safety or orbitx_get_forensics, but the 'xray' deep-scan framing gives distinct intent.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as orbitx_get_safety, orbitx_get_forensics, or orbitx_crypto_scan. It neither states conditions for use nor names alternatives, so an agent must infer context from the name alone.

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