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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is established; the description then adds non-obvious traits: 1-3s latency, no AI cost, and the shape of the result (CLEAN/CAUTION/RISKY plus contract checks and market data). It does not discuss rate limits, rate-limit failures, or behavior on unrecognized addresses/chains.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the call to action. Every clause carries information, though the enumerated return contents partly duplicate the output schema.

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 read-only scan with an output schema present, the description supplies everything else an agent needs to choose and invoke it: speed, cost, chains, verdict vocabulary, and a recommended usage moment.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds chain context (Solana mint vs EVM 0x) but no format, normalization, or validation guidance beyond what the schema already says.

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 fast rug/scam check for Solana or EVM tokens by contract address, and defines the scope (both chains, address-keyed). It never distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling analyze_token, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 a clear trigger: 'Use this before recommending or trading any token.' That is actionable usage context. However, it names no alternative (e.g. analyze_token) and states no exclusions or conditions under which this tool is the wrong choice.

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