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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral traits: data sources (honeypot.is + DexScreener), no external dependencies required ('No wallet, no RPC key, no browser'), pricing ($0.01/call via x402), and its heuristic nature. This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about cost, setup, and reliability.

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 concise (approximately three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently communicates key aspects: purpose, data sources, detection capabilities, caveat, and pricing. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Detects honeypots...' partially repeats 'score rug-pull risk'), but overall it earns its space without verbosity.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers data sources, pricing, dependencies, and heuristic nature. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., numeric score, label, risk level) or how results are presented per token. This gap leaves the agent uncertain about what the tool returns. For a heuristic signal tool, additional context on output would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for tokens, chainId, and maxConcurrency are clear and complete. The tool description's mention of data sources provides general context but does not enhance parameter semantics.

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 function: scoring ERC-20/BEP-20 token rug-pull risk using specific data sources (honeypot.is, DexScreener). It explicitly lists what it detects (honeypots, high taxes, thin liquidity, new pairs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like token-launch-radar or live-price-oracle. The verb 'score' and resource 'rug-pull risk' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description implies usage context (assess token risk) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides a caveat ('Heuristic signal, not financial advice'), which indirectly advises against using it for financial decisions. However, no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., when to use token-launch-radar instead) are given.

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