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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the per-row re-profiling cadence for pools under 6 hours old, checkedAt semantics, the class taxonomy (held/safe/unknown/empty), the 404-and-not-charged behavior for untracked tokens, and a concrete price of $0.02 USDC via x402. That covers payment, error, and freshness behavior an agent needs before invoking a paid call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then edges (pools, curves, 404, price) follow in a logical order. It is on the long side and the price/payment sentence could sit nearer the top, but essentially every sentence conveys distinct operational information.

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?

For a one-parameter paid read tool with an output schema, this is complete: cost, payment mechanism, error behavior, refresh cadence, and the two distinct response shapes (LP pools vs pons-curve) are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 addr parameter, so the 3 baseline already applies. The description adds marginally useful framing that the schema lacks: addr is a path parameter and specifically a token contract address, which helps the agent place it correctly in the call.

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 and resource (rug check for a Robinhood Chain token) and scopes the output precisely: LP ownership profile of each tracked Uniswap v4 pool, plus pons-curve bonding-curve data. An agent can tell it apart from close siblings like rh_token_precall and rh_token_verdict by the LP/insider-share framing, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Before you buy" gives clear context for when this should be called, and the pons-curve note tells the agent what to expect in that specific situation. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer rh_token_verdict), so it stops short of a 5.

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