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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads/retrieves data (indicated by 'Get'), and details the exact information returned (trust score, rug-risk flags, holder analysis, creator track record). It does not mention side effects (none expected for a read operation) or rate limits, but the read-only nature is clearly implied. It adds value beyond the title by naming the data source and analysis dimensions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no redundant phrases. Every word earns its place, and it wastes no space repeating the title.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid overview: what it does, the input, and the categories of output. It could have briefly mentioned how to interpret scores/flags, but for invoking the tool correctly, the description is sufficiently complete.

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% ('Solana token mint address'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds specificity by noting the token type ('pump.fun / meme coin') and clarifies 'mint (token contract) address,' providing meaning beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 a specific action ('Get SolRadar's trust score, rug-risk flags, holder analysis, and creator track record') for a specific resource (Solana token). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_wallet_activity (wallet-focused) and get_trending_tokens (discovery tool).

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 context for use is clear: it is for checking the safety of a Solana token, specifically pump.fun/meme coins. It implies 'use this when you need a trust assessment of a token contract,' though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions. This is a clear context with no explicit alternatives.

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