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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: key selection behavior (CREW_LAUNCHER_KEY if set, else server CREW_OPS_KEY), the permissionless nature, the CreatorFeesNotSwept failure mode and mitigation via OnlinePumpSdk builder. This is rich behavioral context not present in 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 compact sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by runtime behavior, then a specific failure-mode mitigation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key selection, permissionless execution, and a key failure mode. What's missing is return-value/pagination behavior and any idempotency or rate-limit considerations, but the core is well covered.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters including the FORBIDDEN constraints on secretKey/privateKey/launcherKey. The description doesn't add parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Distribute accrued creator fees', with underlying operations (sweep + distributeCreatorFeesV2) named. It distinguishes the resource from siblings like crew_wire_fees or crew_launch, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Says 'Permissionless on-chain' which implies it can be called freely, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to an alternative tool. Usage context is implied but not spelled out.

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