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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by detailing specific checks (mint authority, freeze authority, metadata flags, transfer fees, holder/LP concentration) and the output (computed red_flags[] plus raw GoPlus facts). It also notes 'Keyless, live on-chain', adding operational context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 starts with a clear purpose sentence and front-loads the required input. It then enumerates detection features and output format, each sentence providing substantive information. Though slightly longer than necessary, it is well-structured and every line adds value. A minor improvement would be to condense the feature list, but it remains efficient.

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 tool is simple (single parameter, no output schema) and the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what input it needs, what checks it performs, what output it returns, and its operational traits (keyless, live on-chain). There is no information gap that would prevent correct usage. The description is complete for its scope.

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% and the parameter is described in the schema as 'The SPL token mint address.' The description repeats this ('Pass the token MINT address') without adding additional meaning, such as format, validation, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully describes the parameter.

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 operation ('Rug-pull / scam RISK SCREENING') and the resource ('Solana SPL token'), and explicitly requires the 'token MINT address'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'token_risk_evm' by being Solana-specific, making the tool easily selectable without ambiguity.

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?

It provides a direct use case: 'Use for "is this Solana token safe / a rug?"'. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for EVM tokens), the explicit 'Solana SPL token' scope implicitly excludes alternative chains, and the sibling 'token_risk_evm' is clear. The guidance is adequate but lacks an explicit 'don't use for ...' exclusion.

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