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

Annotations cover read-only/no-destruct safely, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behaviour: credit consumption, cache-reuse for free, and an API key prerequisite. It also flags the output is 'not financial advice', which matters for downstream use. No contradiction with idempotentHint=false, though the schema-level idempotency_key behaviour is left for the schema to explain.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the verdict/output inventory, then cost, then auth, then disclaimer. No wasted clauses; the parenthetical enum list (never sold / sold / churn / fresh) earns its space by pre-announcing output values.

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 must convey return content, and it does list the major sections (verdict, shell/rug, holder behaviour, bundles, callers). It stops short of describing the shape or ordering of that payload, but an agent knows what it will get.

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 mint, idempotency_key, and max_data_age_seconds are already documented. The description's mention of max_data_age_seconds caching reinforces the schema rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Full Bag Check') and enumerates the concrete outputs: verdict with reasons, shell/rug checks, top-holder behaviour categories, bundles, callers. The word 'Full' implicitly separates it from check_solana_token_basic and check_solana_token_lite, though neither sibling is named outright.

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?

There is real context — API key required, 1 credit for a fresh scan, 0 if a cached scan is newer than max_data_age_seconds — but nothing states when to pick this over the lite or basic siblings. An agent can infer 'full/deep analysis' but must guess at the cost-tier tradeoff that actually separates the three tools.

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