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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the call is free, reads live on-chain data, returns pass/fail per check plus the exact sign_message needed downstream, and lists supported chains. It omits auth/permission needs and any rate-limit or pagination behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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-loads the key fact (free, no payment) and the enumerated checks, then closes with the chain list and the pay-gating rule. Every sentence carries information, though the chain list and multiple clauses make it slightly denser than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't fully explain return values, and it still summarizes them (pass/fail per check, sign_message). It covers purpose, scope, and gating well for a read-only tool; the only material gap is the undocumented non-chain parameters.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only helps with 'chain' by listing valid values (base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, solana); 'token', 'symbol', 'contact', and 'website' are left completely unexplained, and the ambiguous 'contact' field (wallet address? email?) is never clarified.

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 ('Run the FREE precheck for listing a coin on Coin Duel') and enumerates exactly what is checked (liquidity, age, holders, concentration, honeypot sell test, mint authority). It also distinguishes this precheck from the later paid 'submit' step, so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not.

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 context: run the free precheck first, and 'Only submit (and pay 100 USDC) when every check passes,' which establishes the gating workflow. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools (e.g. coinduel_listing_policy or the submit tool) as alternatives, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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