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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: first call queues a scan, results require a second call, the scan takes ~10-60s, and there is a $0.03 cost. It also explains what wallet labels are included or omitted. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, with supporting detail in a structured run-on. Every clause earns its place, though the sentence '$The repricing-or-rug call price data cannot make' is awkwardly phrased and slightly hard to parse, so it is not perfect.

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 must explain what the tool returns, and it does: per-wallet labels, what each label contains, the three possible structure verdicts, and the async/cost model. It could be more explicit about the exact output shape, but for a single-parameter read tool this is sufficiently complete.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already covers it fully ('Token contract address 0x…', 100% coverage). The description adds marginal context by saying 'Robinhood Chain token,' but does not substantially enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific deliverable ('Labeled holder-structure diff') and enumerates exactly what it covers: who froze, added, trimmed, or exited over ~24h, plus per-wallet labels and a structure verdict. It clearly distinguishes itself from price/rug-call tools by explicitly saying '$The repricing-or-rug call price data cannot make.'

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?

The description gives clear usage context: use it for holder-structure diffing, not for repricing-or-rug calls. It also provides the async workflow upfront ('First call queues the scan ... call again for results') and notes the paid nature. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the exclusion is clear.

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