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

Annotations only declare readOnly/destructive hints; the description adds the cost model (paid in USDC on Base), the upstream data sources (GoPlus LP lock/burn, GeckoTerminal top-pool liquidity), and the null-degradation rule when chain_id isn't mapped. These are exactly the behavioral facts annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and tightly packed with distinct facts, though the long multi-clause sentences with stacked parentheticals are denser than ideal. Every clause earns its place, so the length is justified rather than padding.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described; the description still covers cost, data sources, exclusion scope, and the null case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for chain_id by listing the mapped networks (Base, Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Avalanche) and explaining the null consequence when unmapped. contract_address gets no added semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('cheaply drop obviously-bad candidates out of a batch') plus the screening role it plays relative to pricier siblings. An agent can immediately tell it apart from security.token_risk, security.token_diagnostic, and security.contract_health_audit without opening any schema.

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?

Names the exact pattern it targets ('high-volume new-pool screening where most candidates fail a basic liquidity/LP-lock check') and explicitly routes to alternatives for what it doesn't do. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, with the alternative tools named.

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