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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the credit cost and the fact that this is an external-data risk lookup, which are genuinely useful and not in the annotations, though it says nothing about rate limits, caching, or freshness of the data.

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-loaded with the core action and return fields, then a short cost note and a directive. Every clause earns its place and there is no padding.

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 scan with no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the returned fields and notes the credit cost, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps: the undocumented api_key and the absence of any note on data staleness.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that mint_address identifies a single token mint, which is helpful, but it says nothing about the api_key parameter (its default, purpose, or how authentication works). Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('safety scan of one Solana token mint') and enumerates exactly what the scan returns (rug-pull risk score, verdict, mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, liquidity, pair age). The word 'one' plus the singular framing cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling batch tool scan_tokens.

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?

Gives clear usage guidance ('ALWAYS scan before buying a token') and discloses the cost ('Costs 1 credit'), which is actionable context. It does not, however, name the obvious alternative scan_tokens or state when the batch variant would be preferable, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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