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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a free tier of 10 calls per day, and that exceeding it does not error but instead returns the pay-per-call x402 endpoint and price. That quota-and-fallback disclosure is exactly the kind of thing an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 what is scored and how many tokens, then usage, then quota mechanics. No filler and no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 the right thing by listing the risk dimensions returned, and it covers the quota constraint. Remaining gaps are minor: whether results are positionally aligned with the input array, and how per-token failures or invalid addresses affect the batch.

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%, so the schema already documents chain, address pattern, defaults and the 2-25 item bounds; the description only restates the 2-25 EVM token range. The enumerated risk dimensions describe the output rather than adding meaning to the inputs, so it lands at the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("batch rug-check: risk scores") and enumerates the dimensions scored (holder concentration, mint/blacklist/pause/upgrade permissions, liquidity depth). The scope "2-25 EVM tokens in one call" cleanly separates it from single-token siblings like token_risk_metrics and from the Solana-specific scanner without needing to name them.

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?

"Use it to screen a watchlist or a list of candidate trades at once" gives a clear triggering context, and the "EVM tokens" qualifier implicitly steers non-EVM work elsewhere. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative (e.g. token_compare or solana_token_risk_scan) or stating when a single-token call is preferable.

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