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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the scope of the on-chain read, the return value semantics (risk score 0-100, higher = riskier), and that the call is free. It does not mention rate limits or caching, which keeps it just short of 5.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: cost, scope, and return contract, then the alternative routing. No filler and the most decision-relevant token ('FREE') is front-loaded.

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 compensates by stating the return shape (risk score 0-100) and what dimensions are checked, which is enough for a single-parameter read tool. The only gap is that solana_token_safety_batch is never referenced, so batch-scale use is left to inference.

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% for the single 'mint' parameter, which documents base58 format and the schema enforces 32-44 chars. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('On-chain check of a Solana SPL mint') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: mint authority, freeze authority, risky Token-2022 extensions. It also names the sibling tool that covers the omitted checks, so an agent can place it precisely among the three siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For holder concentration, rugcheck flags and honeypot (sell-back) test use solana_token_safety.' This is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-the-alternative statement, plus a cost cue ('FREE.') that helps when budget matters.

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