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

The description says it will 'quarantine flagged tokens,' which is a state-mutating action, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction and is not resolved elsewhere in the definition.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that packs price, purpose, classification labels, and expected outputs with no filler. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

It discloses the $0.01/call cost, the KNOWN/SUSPICIOUS output categories, and safe burn calldata as a deliverable; the schema handles payment retry. It is mostly complete for invocation, though the real meaning of 'quarantine' is left ambiguous given the read-only annotations.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including required chainId, token, and optional payment proof retry flow. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (airdropped/dust tokens) and concrete actions: classify as KNOWN/SUSPICIOUS, detect homoglyph/no-liquidity scams, and return safe burn calldata. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like token_security or wallet_analysis by framing it as scam-airdrop defense.

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 gives clear context: use this when defending against scam airdrops and dust tokens. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended use case is obvious enough for an agent to route correctly.

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