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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral nuances: the score is inverted (1 = clean, higher = riskier), authority == revoked is SAFE, and interpretation of insider % varies with token age/holder count. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics or rate limits, the nature of an analysis tool is implied, and the interpretive details are highly valuable.

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 somewhat lengthy but information-dense, covering purpose, features, usage, and interpretation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, though the all-caps and dash-heavy structure could be slightly streamlined. Every sentence contributes meaningful details, so it avoids redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it lists risk flags, LP lock %, mint/freeze authority, top-holder concentration, rugged flag, and insider metrics with field names. It also provides guidance on interpreting results and cross-referencing with token_security, making it well-rounded for a single-parameter tool.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the single 'mint' parameter ('the Solana token mint address'). The description reiterates 'Needs the token MINT address' and adds the Solana-specific context, but this adds minimal value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it performs Solana rug analysis from RugCheck.xyz, listing specific outputs like risk flags, LP lock %, authority status, and insider/bundle detection. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning cross-checking with token_security and noting its Solana-native focus, while sibling names like rug_check and token_security exist.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use for any SOLANA token safety / is it bundled / is it a rug question' and directs to use it ALONGSIDE token_security as a second source for cross-check. It also clearly states the required input (token mint address), making when-to-use guidance unambiguous.

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