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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: live data sources (chain state, largest accounts, DexScreener), how bonding-curve liquidity is treated (curve field), cost model ($0.005/call, 10 free/day, x402 payment-required result), and error behavior (isError, not charged). One gap: it does not state freshness/caching or whether results are latency-bound despite 'read live'.

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 core value proposition (score meaning and inputs) in the first sentence, then layers sourcing, routing, price, and error semantics in discrete clauses. Dense but every block is functional; the data-source enumeration is slightly heavier than strictly needed for tool selection.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers cost, free tier, payment flow, error semantics, data provenance, and cross-server alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (mint) at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the Base58 format and length. The description adds no extra meaning about the mint beyond noting the returned `curve` field, so the baseline 3 for schema-does-the-work 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 concrete deliverable (0-100 rug-risk score) for a specific resource (any Solana token) and enumerates exactly what feeds the score: mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 extensions, holder concentration, liquidity depth, pump.fun curve flags. It also names the sibling it is not (evm_token_security for EVM, pump_token for curve-stage detail), so the agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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: For any Solana token, pump.fun or not' plus conditional routing to two alternatives — pump_token for pump.fun bonding-curve detail and evm_token_security for EVM tokens. Both the when and the when-not are stated, 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.