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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds cost (0.05 USDC) and attribution (GoPlus), which are useful behavioral traits not reflected in the schema. However, it does not clarify what 'safety' means operationally (e.g., what checks are performed or what kind of output to expect), so transparency remains incomplete.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose, required parameters, cost, and attribution in a compact form. Every clause earns its place, though it sacrifices detail.

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 should explain what the agent can expect back, but it only says 'token safety' without describing return values or how the result should be interpreted. It also does not explain network-specific behavior or the significance of the 0.05 USDC fee beyond stating it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats that token and network are required without explaining their meaning. The schema's pattern and enum provide some mechanical validation, but the description does not clarify what token addresses or network values represent in the context of the GoPlus safety check.

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 'GoPlus token safety' identifies the general domain (token safety via GoPlus) but does not state exactly what kind of safety information is returned or what action the tool performs. It is more of a label than a precise functional description, and it does not disambiguate from sibling tools like memecoin_score or pair_digest.

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 mentions required inputs ('Requires token + network') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other token-related siblings such as memecoin_score or pair_digest. There is no context about what scenarios warrant a safety check or how to interpret results.

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