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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but there is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so in detail: verdict enum, 0-100 score, simulated sale (honeypot), observed buy tax, liquidity, contract ownership, top three risks, oneLiner and share card. That is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 trigger phrases and the core action, then the return payload. The output enumeration is long and list-like, but every item is a distinct field the agent may need to reference since no output schema exists — minor redundancy only.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies both the invocation triggers and the full return shape, plus the cost/latency comparison against token.risk. Nothing an agent needs to select or 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 description coverage is 100% and the chain enum with its 'base' default is fully documented in the schema, including the 'not the payment network' clarification. The description restates the same defaults and supported chains without adding format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: it takes a token contract address (or Solana mint) and returns a risk verdict with a defined enum of outcomes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling token.risk by being 'cheaper and shorter', so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Opens with the exact user phrasings that should trigger it ('is this token safe?', 'is it a rug or a honeypot?', 'check this CA', 'can I sell it?'), then gives the routing rule: 'Use for a quick safe-to-buy answer; for every check behind it use token.risk.' Both the when and the when-to-use-the-alternative are explicit.

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