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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the data source ('public RPC data'), lists what it can and cannot determine ('Lists what it couldn't determine'), clarifies it is 'Not an audit', and states the cost ($0.005). These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs.

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 front-loads the main purpose and packs a lot of specific detail into a single long sentence, followed by two short clarifying sentences. It is efficient and every clause contributes, though the dense list format could be harder to parse than a bulleted structure.

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?

Given the complexity of the checks, the absence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what is checked, what the limitations are, the data source, and the cost. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and set expectations.

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?

There is one parameter (address) with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the address is the token mint address but never explicitly says so, leaving the agent to infer the mapping from the context and the base58 pattern in the schema. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema 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 uses a specific verb ('rug-check') and resource ('Solana token mint'), and enumerates many concrete checks (authorities, metadata mutability, Token-2022 extensions, holder concentration, etc.). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying Solana and a security-check focus, but does not explicitly name alternatives like token_deep_scan or token_report, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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 usage is implied by the description ('Rug-check a Solana token mint'), but the tool provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions for exclusion. It does state 'Not an audit', which sets a boundary but is not a usage directive.

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