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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly says the score is 'read from the chain,' indicating a read-only query, and it discloses output taxonomy (PAYING/STALE/NEVER/NOT_REWARD) and the health-score components. It does not address failure modes, latency, or auth, but for a simple read query the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded with the critical 'BEFORE sizing' directive. The dense second sentence packs only value-adding output details and explicit status definitions. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Without an output schema, the description supplies the necessary return contract: status enum, cost format, and health score components. It also gives call context and chain provenance. No critical information is missing for invoking it with a single mint address.

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?

The single parameter mint is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies; the description only reinforces that the tool works on StonkFun reward-coin positions.

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 centers on a clear, conditional action ('Call BEFORE sizing') and specifies the exact resource (StonkFun reward-coin position). It enumerates return data (payout status, trading cost, health score), so an agent knows what the tool evaluates. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like stonk_preflight or stonk_yield, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It states precisely when to call it: before sizing a StonkFun reward-coin position. This is actionable timing guidance. It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools, missing the 'when-not' part.

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