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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so 'permanently lock' and 'one-shot' are consistent reinforcement rather than new information. The description does add meaningful context beyond the annotations, though: the CREW_LAUNCHER_KEY env-var prerequisite for auth. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger condition, then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive one-shot mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger and the auth prerequisite, and annotations cover the safety profile. It could say more about what the scan selects or what happens on repeated invocation, but nothing essential to calling it 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?

Schema coverage is only 57%, and the description explains none of the parameters (mint, mode, name, ticker). It does add one relevant fact by pointing at CREW_LAUNCHER_KEY in the env, which clarifies why the launcherKey/secretKey/privateKey fields are forbidden, but it does not compensate for the undocumented mode enum and name/ticker fields.

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: 'Scan top holders ∩ CREW KOL directory and permanently lock fee-shares'. Clear and concrete, and the '(one-shot)' qualifier further pins it down. It does not contrast itself against siblings like crew_launch or crew_wire_fees, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Use when launch used holderKol=true.' That is real routing guidance, not implied usage. It stops at 4 because it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use condition (e.g., what to do if holderKol was false).

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