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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context not in the annotations: a hard cap of 20 mints and a credit cost of 1 per token, which tells the agent this operation is billable and bounded.

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 short sentences, both of which carry load: the first states scope and the second states cost. No filler, and the primary constraint 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 read-only, 2-parameter batch tool the essentials are present, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at what a scan returns, and it leaves the undocumented api_key and mint address format unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for both parameters. The description partially compensates by constraining mint_addresses ("up to 20") where the schema has no maxItems, but it says nothing about mint address format or the purpose/behavior of the api_key parameter.

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?

"Bulk scan up to 20 token mints" gives a specific verb (scan), resource (token mints), and batch scope, which implicitly separates it from the singular scan_token sibling. However, it never names scan_token as the alternative, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 word "Bulk" plus the 20-mint cap implies this tool is for multi-mint batches rather than single lookups, but the description never says when to use it versus scan_token or what to do with larger sets. Usage is implied, not guided.

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