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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating it is free, returns availability and exact prices, and explicitly notes it returns no risk findings, plus the feed freshness threshold. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 with no waste. The 'Free' tag is front-loaded, then the core purpose, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and is directly informative.

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?

Given a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (availability and prices), what is not (risk findings), and when to use it. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the mints parameter (one to five distinct mints, each a mint or link) with 100% coverage. The description adds context about coverage and freshness but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb (check) and resource (pump.fun mints) and explains the purpose (full live coverage and feed freshness). It explicitly contrasts with risk checks by noting it returns no risk findings, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_pumpfun_risk.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it right before a paid check' and notes it returns no risk findings, indicating when to use this free pre-check rather than a paid risk tool. This directly addresses when and why to select it.

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