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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it is a heuristic signal, no wallet/RPC/browser required, uses specific data sources, and costs $0.01/call. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the tool's operational characteristics and limitations.

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 a single, information-dense paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently lists detections, disclaimers, and cost. Every sentence adds unique value, making it both concise and structured.

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 only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, data sources, detection capabilities, heuristic nature, constraints (no wallet/RPC/browser), and pricing. No critical context is missing for an agent to decide on and invoke the tool.

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%, with detailed descriptions for tokens, chainId, and maxConcurrency. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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: 'Score ERC-20/BEP-20 token rug-pull risk from honeypot.is simulation + DexScreener liquidity/age.' It also enumerates specific detections (honeypots, high taxes, thin liquidity, brand-new pairs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like token-launch-radar or live-price-oracle.

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 (heuristic risk assessment, not financial advice) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Heuristic signal, not financial advice' which guides interpretation, but no direct exclusions or sibling comparisons. This is adequate but not explicit.

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