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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the primary output shape (0-100 score with verdict and reasoning), but it doesn't explain whether the check is on-chain/off-chain, heuristic-based, or what limitations or failure modes exist. This is adequate but shallow.

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 one focused sentence followed by a clear statement of the return value. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description is not complete enough for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It mentions the output score, verdict, and reasoning, but leaves out tool-selection context and the meaning/format of the single required parameter. An agent would likely need to guess between this and sibling security tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'address' parameter. It doesn't specify whether address refers to the token contract, a Zora-specific identifier, or what chain/format is expected. This is a meaningful ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 the tool's function: checking a Zora token for rug risk and returning a numeric risk score with verdict and reasoning. It is specific about the resource and output, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like honeypot_check.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as honeypot_check, holder_analysis, or zora_scanner. The phrase 'any Zora token' is broad but doesn't state prerequisites, network assumptions, or scenarios where another sibling would be more appropriate.

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