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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the checks: static (mint/freeze authority, holder concentration) and behavioral (liquidity, churn, recent dump, tx velocity). It also mentions the false-positive guard and price. Shows transparency about methodology but does not describe output format beyond verdict and score.

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 description is moderately concise: three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. However, it includes extra details (price, blue-chip guard) that could be streamlined. Each sentence adds value, but overall length could be reduced without losing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return values (verdict and score). It explains the analysis scope (static + behavioral) and special features. Missing detail on output structure (e.g., additional fields) is a minor gap, but overall complete for a safety analysis tool.

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% (context signals). The schema already defines 'mint' as base58 address and 'deep' as boolean. Description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., example address), but mainly restates purpose. Parameters are adequately documented in schema, so no significant value added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: Solana SPL token safety analysis, rug pull/honeypot/scam detection. It specifies the verdict (SAFE/RISKY/CRITICAL) and a 0-100 score. It differentiates from siblings like 'crypto_token_safety' by targeting Solana tokens and combining static and behavioral checks.

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?

The description indicates usage 'before trading' and highlights features like blue-chip false-positive guard and catching behavioral rugs. It implies when to use (pre-trade) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use. Context is clear but lacks direct alternatives.

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