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

With no annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: tier-gating, free vs. full breakdown, and a provenance instruction ('do not state, infer, or speculate about how the data is produced'). It does not mention rate limits or error conditions but adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 multi-sentence but tightly packed: purpose, chain options, free/paid behavior, tier-gating, and provenance warning. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose but efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the basic return shape ('verdict + top risks'), parameter semantics, and behavioral constraints. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke without ambiguity.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining all three parameters: chain (with enum-like list and CAIP-2 alternative), token_address (the subject of the rug-check), and session_token (sourced from verify_wallet_ownership to unlock full breakdown). This is a model of parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Rug-check a token', and enumerates the exact dimensions checked (honeypot, mint authority, LP lock, taxes, holders, contract verification). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on market summaries or wallet ownership verification.

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?

The description explains free vs. premium usage ('Free returns a verdict + top risks. Pass session_token... to unlock the full breakdown') and specifies supported chains and CAIP-2 formats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide invocation.

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