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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context beyond that — and it does: it discloses that the New school creator's third of locked-LP fees is settled off-chain by higher.fun and only *reported*, not claimed, and that a sign_url is returned only when there is something to claim. That conditional-return behavior is genuinely useful and non-obvious.

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 clauses that each carry information: the two claim sources, the off-chain caveat, and the return contract. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids repetition, though the dense domain jargon ('New school coins') adds some parsing cost.

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 carries the return burden and does so concisely: sign_url when there is something to claim, plus the reported-but-not-claimed portion. For a one-parameter, single-transaction builder, that covers what an agent needs before invoking 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 coverage is 100% for the single wallet parameter, and its pattern/signing role is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about the wallet argument, so the baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource pair ('show what a creator can claim and build the unsigned claim transactions') and then enumerates the two fee sources it covers: curve creator fees (one vault across all coins) and post-graduation Raydium CPMM pool creator fees. This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings like get_coin_fees or get_creator_coins.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('claim' fees) but the description never states when to pick this over get_coin_fees, get_creator_coins, or get_wallet_positions, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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