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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds helpful context: per-call cost, supported network, factor categories, and a concrete failure mode. It stops short of describing the returned score or any pagination, but that is not a major gap given the annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose and cost, followed by network restriction and alternative guidance. It is dense but every clause serves a distinct purpose, with only slight redundancy between 'SOLANA ONLY' and the repeat of the EVM rejection.

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?

Together with the schema and annotations, the description covers cost, payment flow, network constraints, error behavior, and sibling routing, which is enough to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the fact that return-value parsing is not needed for selection, though an example result would make the definition marginally more 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% and the property descriptions already explain the address formats and the x402 payment flow, so the description carries little parameter burden. The 'SOLANA ONLY' note does narrow the address domain, but the schema's own wording still mentions EVM addresses, creating a minor inconsistency that the description does not fully reconcile.

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 identifies a precise action and resource: Solana token risk scoring and rugcheck analysis, with 11 concrete factors. It also differentiates from treasury_defender by network, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool is for.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool (Solana tokens) and when not to (EVM), naming treasury_defender as the alternative. The concrete rejection behavior (400 invalid_mint for EVM addresses) removes any ambiguity.

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