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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the result is truncated, it is free, and the complete report requires a paid x402 payment flow. It does not detail return format, but for a read-only preview the added disclosure is substantive.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and scope before the paid-alternative note. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 preview tool with full parameter coverage and clear annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: the covered checks, the truncation caveat, and the paid route for the full report. No output schema exists, yet the returned fields are summarized adequately.

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 100% for the single 'mint' parameter, which already documents it as a base58 SPL token mint address. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (free quick risk preview for a Solana token mint) and enumerates the checks it covers (mint/freeze authority, liquidity, holder concentration flags). It contrasts itself against the 'paid x402 endpoint' full report, so its scope as a truncated preview is clear, though it does not name the sibling tool exactly.

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?

Implies the selection condition clearly: use this for a free, quick, truncated check, and go to the paid x402 endpoint for the full report. There is no explicit exclusion beyond the truncation caveat, but the alternative and its trigger are both present.

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