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

Beyond readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, description discloses methodology (excludes bonding-curve/LP accounts, simulates buy/sell) and output components (verdict, reason codes, percentages). It also notes limitation about trading-behavior risk.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then outputs, then scope. No wasted words; each sentence adds essential information.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, description covers behavior, outputs, and limitations well. No significant gaps.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for mint (base58, 32-44 chars), and the description does not add parameter-specific detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Analyzes structural risk of a Solana token from on-chain data', lists concrete components (holder concentration, sniper bots, honeypot simulation). Clearly distinguishes from sibling wallet/trade cost tools by focusing on token structural risk.

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?

States clear scope ('structural only') and what it does NOT detect ('trading behavior'), which helps choose when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like check_wallet_forensics or check_trade_cost, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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