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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: it's a heuristic, not a security guarantee, no account access, no fund movement, and reiterates 'not investment advice'. This clarifies the operational boundaries beyond the structured hints, without contradicting them.

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 sentences deliver purpose, disclaimers, routing, and parameter logic without excessive verbosity. The key purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place. Slightly run-on with multiple clauses, but still reads cleanly and is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description doesn't need to describe return values. It covers purpose, limitations, routing, parameter logic (xor), and safety disclaimers. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating prerequisites (e.g., need chain plus either token or address), but that's implied by the xor note and required chain.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining the 'Token xor address with chain' relationship, which is not fully spelled out in individual property descriptions. Also notes that 'scope' is in the schema (redundant but harmless). This goes slightly beyond the schema's documentation.

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 (checks token security) and gives concrete examples of what it surfaces (tax/holder-risk signals). Explicitly routes on-chain activity stats to a sibling (get_token_onchain), clearly distinguishing its scope from that tool. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from all 30+ siblings.

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?

Provides a direct routing rule ('On-chain activity stats→get_token_onchain') which tells the agent when to pick the alternative. Implies usage context through 'public heuristic', 'read-only public research data', and explicit exclusions ('no order placement or fund transfers'). Doesn't state a formal 'when to use this' sentence, but the intent and exclusions are clear enough.

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