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 substantial non-structured context: pay-per-call pricing ($0.003, 10 free/day, x402 payment-required result), error behavior (isError, not charged), and the crucial semantic caveat that 'ok:true' means no red flags were found, not that the coin is safe. This discloses behavioral traits well beyond the annotations.

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-loaded with the core purpose before the rule details, and most content (skip rules with back-test numbers, pricing, error semantics) is genuinely load-bearing. It is dense and somewhat long, with the enumerated skip rules reading like a spec list, but almost every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose. Given a single required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything extra an agent needs: scope, verdict semantics, cost model, and failure behavior.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already documents the Base58 mint format, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only the qualifier that pump.fun launches get the full bundle view, which is scoping context rather than parameter syntax; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Who bundled a Solana pump.fun launch,' then enumerates the exact analyses performed (block-0 labelling, supply held, serial-dev check, top-10 concentration, RugCheck, back-tested verdict). It explicitly distinguishes itself from launch_scan ('for a scored launch verdict use launch_scan'), so an agent can route between them 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?

Has an explicit 'When to use' section that names the scenario (see WHO bundled a launch, get the skip/pass rug guard) and names the alternative (launch_scan) with the condition that selects it. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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