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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (rank, is_canonical, real contract, famous-name flag, impersonation_risk) and supported chains (Robinhood/Solana). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, though 'check' implies it, nor does it mention error cases or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences that front-load the purpose with a question, then list outputs and input format. No fluff, but it is a bit dense. The structure is logical and efficient, earning a 4 rather than 5 due to slight redundancy in repeating the input format from the schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lists all return fields, which is essential for an agent to interpret results. It also explains the input format and the purpose. It does not cover edge cases like invalid addresses or token-not-found scenarios, but for a check tool this is acceptable.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the input format (0x or base58) but adds no new semantics beyond that. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying whether a token contract is the real one for its ticker or a copycat, using a question and scam context. It identifies the resource (token contract) and the action (check). It is specific and distinguishes from generic 'check' tools by focusing on impersonation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Provides a clear scenario: when an agent is told to buy a ticker, it needs the legit contract, implying this tool should be used to verify authenticity. It also lists the output fields that aid decision-making. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like check_mint, leaving some inference.

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