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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds material context they cannot carry: the rate limit (5 free calls/day), the paid fallback ($0.002 via x402 USDC on Base), and the verdict vocabulary. That cost and quota disclosure is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the verdict enum, then pricing; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense but free of waste.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return verdicts (serial_collapser / collapsed_before / no_collapses_seen / unknown) and the underlying metrics, and it discloses billing. Complete enough for a single-parameter read tool.

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 100% and the single address parameter is fully documented with a pattern and label. The description restates the input as 'the wallet that deployed it' but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (the wallet that deployed a newly launched Base token), plus the exact data returned: number of earlier tokens followed and how many collapsed. It is clearly distinct from siblings like check_token_safety and check_address_safety.

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 a clear situational trigger ('before buying a newly launched Base token'), which is exactly the decision point an agent would need. It does not explicitly name or exclude the sibling tools, so it falls short of a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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