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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: it is always available and does not require PUMPFUN_BOT_URL configuration. It does not detail failure modes or what 'unhealthy' looks like, but the return shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then availability, then the routing trigger. Every clause carries information with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return fields need no explanation, and the description supplies the two things an agent cannot get from structured data: the no-config prerequisite and the diagnostic invocation trigger. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters with an empty, fully covered schema, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the configuration and health status of the pump.fun indexer backend. This is clearly a diagnostic/health endpoint, distinguishable from the data-retrieval siblings like get_token_details or get_new_tokens.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('use this first when ... fail or are missing') and names the alternatives it complements, which is exactly the routing an agent needs. Minor deduction because the referenced tools (search_tokens, get_graduated_tokens, get_king_of_the_hill, get_creator_profile) do not appear in the provided sibling list, so the cross-references may not resolve reliably.

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