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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the important scope limit 'it reads only the mint account', telling the agent the verdict is derived from on-chain mint authority flags rather than off-chain analysis. It stops short of stating rate limits, auth requirements, or how long a verdict stays fresh.

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 question and verdict vocabulary, then ordered when-to-use, exclusions, and a concrete example. Every clause carries information; nothing is boilerplate padding.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the stated checks (freeze/mint/tax authority), the scope limit (mint account only), the trigger conditions, and a worked example, an agent has everything needed to select and call it 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the base58 32-byte mint address, so baseline is 3. The inline example (a USDC mint) usefully confirms the expected value format in context, but adds no semantics beyond the schema's own field description.

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 question it answers ('Is this Solana token safe to hold or receive?') and the exact output form ('A SAFE, WARN or DANGER verdict'). It also names what it is not ('Not a price, liquidity or holder lookup'), which separates it from siblings like get_token, estimate_slippage, and get_account_lines without opening their 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?

'When to use: Before accepting or swapping into an unfamiliar token' gives an explicit trigger, and 'Prefer another tool' explicitly excludes price/liquidity/holder lookups and project audits. It even lists the concrete risk questions answered (freeze, mint more, move or tax balances), so the agent can match it to intent precisely.

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