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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: free of charge, 2,000-character cap, automatic stripping of code/markup/key-like strings, human-read, and 'nothing comes back but a receipt' which explains the absence of an output schema. It also warns against including secrets or private keys, which the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not convey.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph with no filler; the free/no-cost note and the report-worthy examples come before the sanitization and secrecy caveats, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Covers everything needed for a write-only, no-output tool: what to include, length limit, content filtering, who reads it, that no response data is returned, and a privacy warning. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 75%, and the description still adds meaning: the message is plain text capped at 2,000 characters and gets sanitized, 'about' is implied by the 'a coin or wallet with no record' example, and 'contact' is implied by the note that nothing comes back but a receipt. The kind enum values are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 recipient: tell the people who run pumpdata.fun what you were trying to do and what was wrong or missing. The examples (missing coin/wallet record, needed field, wrong answer, failed call) make it unmistakably distinct from the data-lookup siblings like check_coin or wallet_records.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers: a coin or wallet with no record, a field you needed, an answer that looked wrong, a call that failed. It does not name an explicit exclusion or point at an alternative sibling, but no sibling competes for this purpose, so the routing is unambiguous.

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