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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the 20-second rewrite cadence, the 120-second staleness cutoff, the resulting 503 failure mode with a no-charge guarantee, and the $0.01 USDC x402 price. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core signal and window, then layered with burst contents, scoring, freshness, and pricing. Dense but every clause carries operational meaning; it runs long, but little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, filters, sampled-vs-unsampled burst detail, scoring horizon, freshness guarantees, failure behavior, and cost. Nothing essential to a correct call 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 'minutes' parameter, including its 1-240 bounds and 60 default, so the schema does the work. The description repeats the range ('last 1-240 minutes') but adds no semantics beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 resource and scope: 'Solana pump.fun bonding-curve buyer bursts from the last 1-240 minutes,' which pins down chain, venue, signal type, and window. The recency framing implicitly separates it from sol_bursts_history, but the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

The token-age and curve-progress filters ('5 min to 4 h old that show curve progress') imply when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to sol_bursts_history or rh_bursts_live. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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