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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.01 USDC x402 payment on Base, that the analysis is rules-based from onchain facts, and that the requestKey is echoed. It does not cover failure modes (unknown address, unsupported chain), latency, or whether results are cached.

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-loaded with the verdict and its grade vocabulary, then supporting facts, then pricing. Dense but every clause carries information; the 'Same call shape as quest verdicts' reference requires outside knowledge and is the least useful sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return contents: grade, one-liner, short take, shareable card, 0-100 risk score with reasons, and deployer history. Missing only operational details such as payment failure handling and chain-default edge cases beyond what the schema states.

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%, including the chain enum and the address-pattern defaults, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the chain list and that requestKey is optional and echoed, adding little beyond structured fields.

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?

Description gives a specific verb+resource ('Rug Radar verdict for a token'), the supported chains, and the concrete artifacts produced (grade, one-liner, take, shareable card). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, token_risk_check, which also rates token risk, so an agent cannot fully tell the two apart from this text alone.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the chains and the grade vocabulary, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over token_risk_check or deployer_record, and no exclusions (e.g., unsupported chains or non-token addresses). The 'not financial advice' line frames output interpretation but is not usage guidance.

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