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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: merging two sources, fail-closed on simulation, never returns clean on simulation alone, and lists verdicts. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only assessment tool.

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 verbose and uses informal, cryptic language (e.g., 'scoring flags without that distinction is why most scanners are noise'). It front-loads with a question but lacks structured sections, making it harder to parse quickly.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the five possible verdicts (rug_ready, etc.) and explains the data sources and failure modes. This provides sufficient context for a risk assessment tool with simple inputs.

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% for the two parameters (chain and address). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides, failing to enhance understanding of parameters.

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 assesses whether a token can still be rugged by checking if dangerous capabilities are fireable, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tool till_vet_meme. However, the verb is implied rather than explicit, and the wording is convoluted.

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 explains the behavior (merges two sources, fail-closed) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied through the context of rug risk assessment.

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