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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses what the tool inspects (team, payout wallet, mint proceeds, contract safety), how it weighs facts (flagged wallet as red flag, fresh wallet as neutral), and the range of input formats accepted. It sets expectations for the analytical nature and honesty of results.

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 is dense but every sentence adds value—the first sentence summarizes the core action, the second lists checks, the third explains evaluation philosophy, and the fourth enumerates inputs. Slightly verbose with the emphatic 'THE tool' phrasing, but still efficient and well-structured with the most important info front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (multi-faceted risk assessment) and no output schema, the description covers the 'what' and 'how' well. It lacks an explicit description of the return value (e.g., risk score vs. report), which would be helpful, but the inputs and process are sufficiently documented for an agent to invoke 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?

The single parameter 'collection' has 100% schema coverage, and the description merely repeats the three accepted formats. No additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 action ('One-call... scorecard') and a clear resource ('NFT mint / collection'). It enumerates concrete activities (resolves team, vets wallet, follows proceeds, checks contract) and explicitly positions itself as 'THE tool' for rug/launchpad safety, distinguishing it from generic lookup tools.

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?

Strongly implies when to use it ('THE tool for... is this mint a scam'), and lists acceptable inputs (slug, URL, contract address). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the 'one-call' framing and 'THE tool' language make the intended use case unmistakable.

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