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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: live facts sourced from RugCheck with GoPlus fallback, transparently-weighted composite score, timestamped snapshot, and an explicit caveat that it is 'not a safety guarantee'. It even discloses a deliberate scoring exclusion and why.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the failure modes, then the sourcing, then the exclusions, then the return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; the semicolon-chained 'does NOT score...' passage is long, costing a point on tightness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on the burden and delivers it: it lists the returned fields (score, verdict, verdict_summary, components, facts, market_context, sources) and the verdict enum values. Given one simple required param, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'mint' as a base58 Solana mint address. The description repeats but does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter semantics; 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 ('Token rug-pull MECHANISM check for a Solana token (mint address)') and enumerates the exact failure modes it inspects (mint supply, freeze wallets, pull liquidity, swap metadata, scam patterns). An agent can distinguish it from the adjacent run_wallet_flag_check without opening either schema.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('Use when user asks "is this token a rug pull?" or "is [token] safe to buy?"') and explicitly states what the tool does NOT cover (holder concentration / whale dump impact, deferred to market_context). It does not, however, name a sibling tool as an alternative for the excluded concerns.

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