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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the data points returned (honeypot, taxes, LP lock, etc.), the chain coverage, and special Solana handling (mint/freeze authority, transfer-hook). It implies a read-only profile operation but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or failure modes.

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 four sentences, densely packed with relevant lists and details. Each sentence serves a purpose: defining the output, covering Solana specifics, stating the use case, and providing input source guidance. It is slightly long but not verbose.

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?

For a complex security tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, input requirements, chain support, and essentially documents the return content through the list of risk factors. An agent has sufficient context to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains how to use chain=solana with a base58 mint and describes additional Solana-specific fields. It also tells agents where to obtain the contract address, which is not in the schema.

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 provides a 'LIVE token SAFETY/rug-risk profile from GoPlus for a fungible token', enumerating many specific checks. It distinguishes itself by explicitly covering EVM ERC-20s and Solana SPL tokens, which differentiates it from NFT-focused or other security siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for any "is this token safe / a scam / a rug" question' and explains that the token's contract/mint address is needed, mentioning sources like token_price, dex_token, or web_search. However, it does not name alternative tools for non-fungible assets or provide exclusion scenarios.

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