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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses data provenance (live chain reads for authorities/Token-2022 extensions, largest accounts for holders, DexScreener for market), a concrete cost model ($0.005/call, 10 free/day, x402 payment-required result), and error semantics (isError on invalid input or upstream failure, not charged). That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 score definition and scope, then sources, then when-to-use, then pricing and errors — a sensible priority order with no filler sentences. It is dense and somewhat long, particularly the parenthetical list of Token-2022 extensions, but each element carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description nonetheless flags the key `curve` field for bonding-curve tokens. Pricing, failure behavior, data sources, scope boundaries, and sibling routing are all covered — nothing needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `mint` parameter already documents its Base58 format and length, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only modest framing (that the mint may be any Solana token, including pump.fun mints) without new syntax or format detail beyond the pattern.

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+resource+output ('0-100 rug-risk score for any Solana token') and enumerates exactly what feeds the score: mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 traps, holder concentration, liquidity depth, pump.fun curve flags. It also distinguishes itself from the nearest siblings by name (pump_token for curve-stage detail, evm_token_security for EVM tokens), so an agent can route without opening another schema.

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?

Contains an explicit 'When to use' clause covering the full scope ('For any Solana token, pump.fun or not') and names the alternative tools with the condition that selects each (pump_token for pump.fun curve-stage detail, evm_token_security for EVM). No inference is required to choose between them.

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