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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and world-access are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — 10–40 s latency and a ~15/minute rate limit — but says nothing about failure modes, caching, or what happens when an address is unknown. Solid additive value on top of a lower bar, not exhaustive.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the latency cost and report contents lead, the alternative tool and rate limit follow. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes the report's payload. Combined with read-only annotations plus disclosed latency and rate limits, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (including address formats and chain enum), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or filtering detail beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (a deep AI-generated token report) and enumerates exactly what it contains: overall score, scam probability, risk/hype/whale scores, narrative tags, section analysis, holder/developer data. It is immediately distinguishable from scan_token, the sibling it names 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?

"Prefer scan_token for a quick safety check" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it, and the opening "Slower, deeper report (10–40 s)" frames the tradeoff. The agent knows both when to reach for this tool and when not to.

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