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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail about the cost categories and the fact that costs are attributed per signer during execution, but it does not say whether figures are estimates versus committed charges, what unit/currency they are in, or how the two inputs interact at runtime.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core answer (what going live costs) before the parenthetical breakdown. It is dense but every clause maps to a cost category the tool actually reports, with no filler or repetition.

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 carry the burden of describing returns, and it partially does by listing rent, fees, seeds, transactions, and approvals. However, for a zero-required-parameter tool with a nested spec object, it omits default behavior when called with no arguments, the units/nature of the figures, and any indication of response shape.

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 the inline 'spec' object and the named 'example' are documented, including the precedence rule over file and example sources. The description adds no parameter-level meaning on top of that, so the baseline of 3 applies. Notably it also does not resolve the fact that both parameters are optional and what happens on a no-argument call.

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 names a specific resource - the cost of going live - and enumerates what is priced out (account rent, program fees, network fees, seeds, transactions, wallet approvals) plus per-signer per-action cost. The verb is implicit (it reports/estimates rather than stating 'compute'), and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like xsolana_simulate or xsolana_review, but an agent can still tell what the tool returns.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative. 'What going live costs' weakly implies a pre-deployment budgeting context, but nothing says when to reach for this versus xsolana_simulate, xsolana_review, or xsolana_check. The agent must infer the trigger condition.

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