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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation that may reach external environments. The description adds useful context: no chain txs are sent, returns dryRunId + approvalUrl, and requires CREW_AGENT_API_KEY. However, it doesn't address whether the dry-run persists state, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It adds some value beyond annotations.

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?

Packed into three sentences with no waste, and the core behavior (dry-run variant, no chain txs) is front-loaded. The parenthetical intent=wire-fees and platform notes are terse but informative. Slightly dense for easy parsing, but efficient.

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 22 parameters, 0 required, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the main modes and returns but omits guidance on most parameters and the nested crew structure. It's adequate but leaves gaps that could mislead an agent on required inputs for wire-fees (only mint is hinted via schema description).

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 36%, so the schema leaves many parameters undocumented. The description adds meaning for a few: platform defaults to pumpfun, bags/zora check enablement, intent launch/wire-fees, and implications for crew[] and Autohire. But many parameters (mode, seats, name, ticker, etc.) and the nested crew object fields lack description-level guidance, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 (dry-run) and resource (launch), plus a second mode (wire-fees intent). It distinguishes itself from siblings crew_launch and crew_wire_fees by name, making clear this is the no-chain-tx variant.

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?

Gives usage context: default is launch, intent=wire-fees for fee wiring, bags/zora check enablement without sending chain txs, prefer explicit crew[] from crew_list_kols, Autohire is fallback. It names sibling crew_list_kols as the source for crew, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs crew_launch (the real version).

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