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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavioral context: manual selection is preferred over Autohire, and for Zora the agent should prefer registered evm_wallet / pass Base addresses. It omits return format and pagination behavior.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then usage, then a domain-specific selection hint. Front-loaded and largely waste-free, though the Zora address hint could be more clearly separated from the launch-routing guidance.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies sufficient selection and routing context. Since there is no output schema, it arguably should say more about what a profile record returns, which is the one remaining gap.

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 q, limit, and offset are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes that q is an optional filter and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('List/browse CREW KOL profiles') and adds scope ('optionally filtered by q'). An agent can distinguish it as the directory-browse tool, though it never explicitly names the closest sibling crew_search_kols, leaving a small ambiguity about list vs. search.

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 clear when-to-use context ('to select explicit crew wallets before launching on pumpfun, bags, or zora') and names an alternative with a condition ('Manual pick first; Autohire is a fallback'). It doesn't address when to prefer crew_search_kols over this list endpoint, so it stops one step short of full routing guidance.

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