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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the scope boundary ('Does not assess creator behaviour') and what the output tells you ('which brand, and why'). It stops short of describing confidence levels, rate limits, or whether a negative result is conclusive.

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?

Four sentences, none wasted, and the core capability plus the sibling routing are front-loaded. Slightly longer than strictly necessary given the example coin names, but those examples usefully illustrate what a positive detection looks like.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely does so by stating it reports whether the name would be flagged, which brand, and why. It also covers the negative scope. Remaining gaps (opt-in parameters, result granularity) are minor for a read-only lookup whose annotations already signal safety.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with examples. The description reinforces the name/ticker pairing and that no address is required, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'run the impersonation detector on a token name and/or ticker symbol without needing an address'. It also explicitly scopes out the sibling by noting that check_token is used when an address is available, so an agent can discriminate between the two without opening a 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions ('pre-launch name checks', 'when a user mentions a coin by name and you have no address') and names the alternative tool plus the exact condition that selects it ('with an address, use check_token'). Nothing is left to inference.

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