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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely non-structured information: this is a paid endpoint at $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana, or Arc, with failed calls not charged — critical for an agent deciding whether to call. It also discloses which risk flags are surfaced, though it doesn't say whether results are cached or how stale the on-chain read may be.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the scope exclusion, then pricing. No filler and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required, and the description covers the remaining burdens — data source, scope limits, risk-flag inventory, and payment model. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing material 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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the mint address format (base58, 32-44 chars). The description adds nothing about the mint parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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 and resource (audit of a Solana SPL mint account from chain) and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: program (Token vs Token-2022), authorities, supply, decimals, and named Token-2022 extensions with risk flags. The explicit scope boundary ('reads the mint account only; it does not check holders or liquidity') separates it from siblings like crypto_token_holder_concentration and crypto_solscan_account_tokens.

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?

Exclusion clauses tell the agent when this tool is the wrong pick (no holder or liquidity analysis), which is clear negative guidance. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool to use instead for holder concentration or liquidity, so routing is only partially resolved.

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