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

The annotations readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already signal safety, and the description adds important behavioral context: 'Measurements, never a buy or sell signal; unknown stays unknown.' It also discloses coverage limits ('where GoPlus covers the chain') and the special Robinhood Chain behavior, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 first sentence front-loads the use case, and the final sentence is a crisp safety qualifier. The return-value description is dense and would benefit from a bulleted list, but every sentence carries substantive information with little redundancy.

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 properly takes on the burden of explaining what is returned: pool metrics, GoPlus checks, historical SWOGE observations, and a shareable scan card. It also covers limitations such as chain coverage and uncertainty, making the tool's behavior clear enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully: address format and the quote flag behavior. The description adds context about EVM scope and DexScreener chain coverage, but this is marginal beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the operation ('scan'), the resource ('EVM token'), and the intended trigger ('before buying, listing or writing about') in the first sentence. It also distinguishes the tool by listing its distinct output categories: DexScreener market data, GoPlus security checks, and Robinhood Chain SWOGE observations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this before buying, listing or writing about an EVM token') and scopes it to chains DexScreener indexesable. However, it does not name an alternative tool or describe when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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