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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's free, rate-limited to 100 checks/day per IP, and returns a structured risk read with specific signal categories (authority state, liquidity, holder concentration, contract flags). This adds beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 slightly verbose but front-loaded with 'FREE' and the core purpose. Each sentence contributes useful information: input formats, output type, rate limit, and the reference URL. No redundant fluff, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies valid inputs, what the response contains, and operational constraints (free, rate limit). It does not describe the exact response format, but that is not critical for a scan tool. The coverage is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema description for the single parameter 'token' already says 'token contract address / Solana mint, or an exact token name/ticker', with 100% coverage. The tool description adds minor clarity by specifying 'any token contract address (Solana mint or EVM address)' and 'exact token name/ticker', but this is marginal. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the semantic load.

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 it is a 'token-safety scan' with a specific verb and resource, and details the exact inputs (contract address or name/ticker) and output (structured risk read with on-chain signals). It distinguishes itself from generic tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling risk tools like token_risk_deep or token_risk_verdict, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 implies usage for a free, quick scan ('FREE', 'no payment, no signup', 'fair use 100 checks/day'), giving contextual cues about when it might be appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like token_risk_deep or token_risk_verdict, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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