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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent profile; the description adds substantial behavioral context: the three verdict values, the concrete risk-score signals (supply bought at launch, same-block bundles, creator cash-out, serial launcher), the returned creator wallet/explorer links, and an API-key tier that degrades to brand match only. That tiering is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot express.

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 what the tool is and what it returns, with the usage trigger next and caveats last. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical risk-signal list is somewhat long but justifies itself by previewing the risk score.

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 carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does: verdict enum, matched brands, risk score range, reasons, and creator/explorer links. The unauthenticated-mode caveat and the negative-result disclaimer close the two biggest interpretation risks, leaving only the chain-parameter default as a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the mint-vs-0x-contract distinction. The description restates the address meaning but adds nothing about the chain enum (including the unusual "robinhood" value) or what happens when chain is omitted, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 (look up a deployed token by contract/mint address) and the exact judgment it returns (brand impersonation verdict). The examples (fake SpaceX, Coinbase, NVDAx) and the contrast with a name-based lookup (sibling check_name) make it unmistakable which tool this is.

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?

"Use before buying, listing or promoting a token" gives a concrete triggering context, and the warning that "not_in_index" is not a safety guarantee tells the agent how to interpret a negative result. It never explicitly says to use check_name for brand names instead, so the sibling routing is left implicit.

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