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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new context: it reads public sources only, never asserts a token is safe, and is not financial advice. It also previews the output signal vocabulary, which is behaviorally important for interpreting results.

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 trigger condition, then inputs, then output shape, then caveats. Dense but every sentence contributes; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 an output schema present the description need not detail return values, yet it summarizes them anyway for routing clarity, and the safety disclaimer plus source-link note round out what an agent needs. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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% and includes an enum for chain, so the schema already carries most semantics (baseline 3). The description adds value by listing the accepted chains inline and explaining the conditional context for the optional github_url and deployer parameters beyond the field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('token') and immediately scopes it as a red-flag check. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_feedback_reply and wallet_identity, which cover unrelated domains.

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 explicit trigger phrasings ('is this a rug?', 'screen this coin', 'who is the dev?') and the precondition ('before buying'), so the agent knows exactly when to reach for this tool versus others. It also names the required inputs up front.

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