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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description goes beyond them by spelling out that the lock is permanent and one-shot, and that CREW_LAUNCHER_KEY must live in the MCP env. It does not disclose failure behavior or what happens to holders not in the KOL directory.

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 ordered by what it does, when to use it, then the auth precondition. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

The high-risk facts (destructive, permanent, one-shot, env-sourced key) are covered and there is no output schema to explain. However, with 7 parameters and no param guidance, an agent still cannot tell what mode/name/ticker do or what a failed lock returns.

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 43% of the 7 parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — mode's enum values (agent/split/buyback/raid), name, and ticker are undefined anywhere. The schema's mint pattern and FORBIDDEN-field notes do the remaining work.

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.' The intersection scope and the one-shot permanence distinguish it from siblings like crew_wire_fees, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 activation condition, 'Use when launch used holderKol=true,' which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative tool for other launch configurations.

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