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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the nature of checks (read-only analysis of authority, listing, supply), but doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only, describe the returned risk scale, or mention any side effects or limitations.

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 sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing important details.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but because there is no output schema, the description should explain what the returned risk score represents (scale, higher/lower meaning). This is missing, leaving interpretation ambiguous, though the 'ideal for Pump.fun screening' hint provides some context.

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 describes the only parameter ('SPL token mint address') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as a risk scorer for Solana SPL tokens and lists specific checks (mint/freeze authority, CoinGecko listing, supply), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like sol_stablecoin_risk or sol_wallet_analysis.

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?

States the intended use case ('Ideal for Pump.fun token screening'), giving concrete context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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