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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost (FREE), auth requirements (none), rate limits (100/day), source (same as hostdefi.com/scan), and output behavior (concerning/legitimate signals). It does not cover error handling or exact return format, but these are secondary for a read-only scan 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 two well-structured sentences that pack in all essential details: input, output, cost, rate limit, and provenance. There is no fluff, and key value ('FREE.') is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains different input formats, what the risk report contains, and constraints like fair use and no signup. It lacks an explicit return schema or not-found behavior, but the overall context is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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 already documents the single 'token' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of nuance by emphasizing 'exact token name/ticker' and specifying supported address types, but it largely mirrors the schema description rather than adding substantial new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('token-safety scan'), and clearly defines input types (Solana mint, EVM address, exact token name/ticker) and output (structured risk read with listed signals). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool token_risk_verdict, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for token-safety scanning by passing a contract address, Solana mint, or exact token name/ticker. It also provides practical usage context (free, no signup, 100 checks/day per IP) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary cases, so it falls short of 5.

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