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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it enumerates exactly which authority/permission checks are performed, discloses scope limits (no sell simulation, not an audit), and states the price/billing path. It omits rate limits, latency, and whether results are cached.

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?

Highly front-loaded: purpose, when-to-use, input, output, limitations all appear in the first three lines with no filler. The telegraphic 'X: Y' style and the appended pricing/token-address fragment make the tail slightly noisy.

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?

For a one-param tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (riskLevel + signals with evidence) and enumerates the signals, which is the key missing structured data. Error semantics and signal weighting/interpretation are left unexplained.

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 coverage is 100% and the single param is fully documented in-schema (base58, 32 bytes, 400/422 behaviors). The description only restates 'Input: mint' plus a worked example address, adding little semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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: a Solana token risk scan covering rug pull, scam, and safety signals, and the chain qualifier separates it from base_token_risk. It does not explicitly name sol_token_info as the non-risk sibling, so sibling routing is inferable rather than stated.

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 when buying, accepting or listing a token' gives concrete triggering contexts, and 'No sell simulation; not an audit' sets an explicit exclusion boundary. No alternative tool (e.g. sol_token_info for plain metadata) is named, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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