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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the result is a previously saved check (not a live re-analysis), the exact shape of what comes back is spelled out (verdict, key number, reasons, report link), and the not-yet-checked case returns a link to run a free check.

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 question the tool answers, then a single dense sentence covering return contents and the empty-case fallback. The verdict enumeration is long but earns its place by telling the agent what values to expect, and there is no filler.

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-value burden and does so fully: verdict vocabulary, the key number, plain-English reasons, report link, plus the degenerate case. For a single-parameter read-only lookup with annotations already covering safety, 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 100% and the schema's own address description ('Solana base58 or Robinhood Chain 0x…') already conveys everything the prose adds, so there is no net new meaning about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 opens with a specific question it answers ('Was this coin bundled at launch?') and names the exact resource: the saved unbundle launch check for a Solana or Robinhood Chain token address. It even enumerates the possible verdicts, so an agent can tell this is a coin-level launch-safety lookup rather than a wallet or research listing tool.

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 rather than stated: the framing question and the 'has not been checked yet' fallback tell an agent this is a lookup on an already-analyzed token. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (check_wallet, list_research) or what to do if the address is invalid or on an unsupported chain.

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