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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and closed-world scope. The description adds valuable operational context beyond annotations: statelessness, a 32 KB limit, 60 RPM rate limit, demo/L402 payment options, and HTTP 400 on invalid input, with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling differentiation before operational details. Despite being information-dense, each clause contributes useful selection or invocation context, and there is 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?

For a stateless two-parameter evaluator with an output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling routing, input expectations, rate/size limits, payment modes, and error behavior. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly without needing return-value documentation.

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 100%, so both parameters and the risk_profile enum are already well documented. The description reiterates the default risk_profile and token_address input but adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: evaluating a Solana SPL token's rug-pull probability via mint authority, freeze authority, mutable metadata, and holder concentration. It explicitly distinguishes this security assessment from inspect_solana_token_liquidity, which handles symbol, decimals, and DEX liquidity metadata.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition: pre-trade security decisions on whether a Solana SPL token is safe to buy. It also names the alternative tool and the exact condition for using that sibling instead, leaving little room for misselection.

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