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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile fully. The description adds domain behavior ('New launches lock fees at launch') that helps interpret the result, but says nothing about return contents or failure modes.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the checked conditions come first and the workflow guidance follows. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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-parameter, read-only, idempotent check with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to call it correctly and interpret the purpose. Only the shape of the returned status is left unstated, which is a minor gap given the simple contract.

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 100% and the single 'mint' parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, including format and where to obtain it. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('check') and resource ('CREW mint') and enumerates exactly what is being checked: fee-shares locked, Holder KOL open, board presence. This is well beyond a restatement of the name, though it does not by itself differentiate from every sibling in a 16-tool set.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: 'Use after submit, or before repair (crew_wire_fees) / lock / crank.' It names the sibling tools that precede or follow it, giving the agent a clear sequencing signal. It stops short of stating exclusions or when this check is unnecessary.

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