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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: infrastructure addresses (bonding curve, Raydium pool, LP lock) are labelled in the result so they aren't misread as whales — a real interpretation caveat an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Two short sentences, return contents front-loaded, then the labelling caveat. No filler and nothing restated from the title or schema.

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 burden of explaining returns and does so only partially: it says holders and supply share plus labelled infra addresses, but not ordering, how many holders are returned, truncation, or whether the list is paginated. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a data-returning tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a base58 pattern and the higher.fun 'high' suffix hint, so the schema does all the work. The description adds nothing about the mint address beyond what the schema already says.

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?

"Top holders of a coin with their share of supply" states a specific resource and the metric returned, which clearly separates it from siblings like get_coin (metadata) and get_coin_trades (activity). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting holder concentration, but the description never says when to prefer it over rug_check or get_coin, nor any prerequisites. The second sentence is about interpreting results, not about tool selection.

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