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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable non-inferable behavior: the $0.01 cost, the free sample URL, and the payment-requirements/URL-to-call flow. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 purpose, followed by a compact list of outputs and then the cost/sample/payment details. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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 covers the main report contents, cost, sample endpoint, and the unusual paid-URL flow. The only weakness is ambiguity about whether the immediate response is the full report or a payment redirect, but an agent still has enough information to call the tool and interpret its result.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter, mint, at 100% coverage with 'Solana mint address (base58).' The description reinforces that the target is a Solana token but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a concrete function ('rug risk check') and the resource ('Solana token'), then enumerates specific report contents such as mint/freeze authority, LP lock, holder concentration, RugCheck risks, and a security score. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on holders, narrative, or price.

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?

The 'is this token safe to buy?' framing establishes a clear pre-purchase safety-assessment use case, which is distinct from the related token tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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