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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds a concrete rate limit and clearly states the output is only the verdict/grade, excluding reasons, summary, and market data. It does not contradict annotations, though it leaves minor details like rate-limit failure behavior unstated.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the free verdict/grade output, then rate-limit, then the alternative for richer data. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers output semantics, supported token families, rate limits, and the richer paid alternative. Even without an output schema, an agent can correctly decide to call it and interpret the returned verdict/grade.

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%: both chain and address are already documented with formats and examples. The description only echoes 'Solana or EVM token' and adds no real parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides.

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 operation: return a green/orange/red verdict and grade for a Solana or EVM token. It also names the output scope with 'only' and explicitly contrasts with token_verdict, making the tool distinguishable from siblings.

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?

Tells the agent when to use this free quick version and when not to: for reasons, summary, or market data it routes to token_verdict ($0.01). It also warns about the shared 10-calls-per-hour limit with presign_quick_check, giving clear capacity-aware guidance.

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