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

The annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: it lists the exact safety checks performed, mentions Solana mint/freeze authority, and states that the result includes display markdown with chan images that should be shown to the user. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but the added behavioral detail is substantial.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the safety checks are listed efficiently. The later sentences about offering a SwapChan swap and consulting swapchan_playbook add workflow context but drift slightly toward promotion rather than helping invoke this specific tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job naming the return components, including risk level and the display markdown that should be shown. It is sufficient for a two-parameter read-only safety tool, though it leaves out failure modes and chain-specific limitations.

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 chainId parameter is already thoroughly documented in the schema, while the address parameter has no schema description despite being required. The description only implies that address is a token/contract address and does not explain address format, EVM versus Solana differences, or how chainId affects the read. At 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate adequately.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: a plain-English read of a token/contract covering verified source, proxy/upgradeability, owner renunciation, dangerous powers, and risk level. It is much clearer than a generic token_info or read_chain tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling token_risk tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the safety-reading purpose and the mention of the token-safety workflow in swapchan_playbook, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus token_risk or read_chain. It also does not say when not to use it.

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