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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: chain coverage, specific label types returned, LP lock status, creator/owner share, OFAC screening, cost ($0.01), and a free sample URL. It still does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core capability and then adds the sibling comparison, sample URL, and cost in a tight sequence. It is dense but every sentence adds selection or invocation value, with only minor padding around the sample link.

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 one-parameter, read-only, paid data lookup with no output schema, the description covers the returned data categories, chain coverage, cost, and a sample. The main gap is the unresolved cross-chain parameter format, but overall it gives an agent enough to decide and attempt a call.

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 describes the parameter as a Solana mint address (base58). The description says the tool works for a token 'on any chain' and lists EVM, Tron, and Sui support, but never explains how to pass a non-Solana contract address or whether the 'mint' parameter accepts them. This creates an unresolved inconsistency that could lead an agent to pass a Solana-formatted value for other chains or vice versa.

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 resource (holder concentration) and enumerates the exact outputs: Solana top 20 with RugCheck insider labels, EVM/Tron/Sui top holders with contract, locked, burn labels, LP lock, creator/owner share, OFAC screening, and ranked flags. It explicitly distinguishes itself from check_token_security by calling itself deeper than the rolled-up top-10 percentage.

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?

Names the closest sibling, check_token_security, and gives the condition that selects this tool: when you need deeper holder detail than the rolled-up top-10 percentage. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the alternative and differentiator are clear.

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