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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, but the description goes further with cost ($0.01/call, 10 free/day, x402 payment-required result) and error semantics (isError on invalid input or upstream failure, not charged). These are operational traits the annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the forensic scope leads, then usage routing, pricing, and errors. The long enumeration of aggregates is list-like, but every item distinguishes what the tool returns, so little is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers scope, alternatives, cost, and failure behavior. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents the mint address and its base58 pattern. The description reinforces the scope ('one pump.fun mint') and the single-mint granularity, adding light value beyond the schema without inventing syntax.

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 (bonding-curve forensics for one pump.fun mint) and enumerates the exact aggregates returned (flow, snipers, top curve holders, peak, graduation). It differentiates from siblings by naming launch_scan, token_risk, and pump_dev with their distinct scopes.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' clause plus a routing table: use this tool for raw curve forensics, launch_scan for a scored verdict, token_risk for contract/liquidity safety, pump_dev for creator track record. Alternatives are named with their servers and URLs, leaving nothing to inference.

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