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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added behavioral value is limited because the listed dimensions (liquidity, honeypot flags, etc.) are return-content details that the output schema already documents. It says nothing about rate limits, caching, or behavior when a contract address is invalid or unknown.

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 tight sentences with the capability first and the usage rule second. Every clause carries information (what is checked, the scope constraint, the timing), and there is no padding.

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 read-only lookup with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it. The remaining gap is that it never addresses cross-chain scope beyond the enum, or what happens on an unknown/invalid contract, but those are minor given the structured fields already present.

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% for both required parameters. The phrase 'one exact contract' usefully signals that the address must be a precise contract address rather than a name or ticker, which is real added meaning. However, the 'chain' parameter and its enum values receive no explanation in either place, so the description only partially compensates for the 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 names a specific action (rug-pull and token security lookup) and resource (one exact contract), then enumerates what the check covers: liquidity, authority, holder concentration, honeypot and tax flags. This is far more specific than the tool name alone. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, get_forensics, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use before buying a new or low-cap token,' which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right call. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the positive usage condition is unambiguous.

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