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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantial non-obvious context: the sell test is a simulation with nothing sent on-chain, billing is settled only on success while 400/4xx/5xx are not charged, cost is $0.009 USDC via x402, and it is not financial advice. This goes well beyond what the annotations declare.

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-loads the user-facing questions and the verdict scale, then the evidence sources, then the output shape and commercial terms in a logical order. The on-chain evidence list is long but each item is load-bearing; the only slack is mild redundancy between the grade and risk-score descriptions.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it enumerates the returned artifacts (letter grade with meanings, sub-70-char one-liner, two-sentence take, red flags, good signs, USD liquidity, 0-100 risk score, honeypot sell test). An agent knows exactly what it gets back and what it costs.

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 framing value by characterizing 'address' as a token contract with the Base-default/Ethereum choice spelled out in prose. The 'via' parameter is not discussed, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Opens with the exact questions it answers (scam? safe to ape? rug risk? accept as payment?) and states the resource (a token contract on Base/Ethereum) and the output (A-F grade). It also names the sibling token_risk_check as the destination for full evidence, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it (quick verdict questions) and when to go elsewhere ('For every detail, token_risk_check returns the full evidence'). It also discloses the payment model and that only settled results are charged, which is directly relevant to deciding whether to invoke it.

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