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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, and the description adds substantial context on top: what is returned (creator's first-block take, bonding-curve buyers, curve completion, self-declared data, finding class), the snapshot-at-creation nature of the record, and the crucial not-observed caveat that absence of an observation is not evidence of safety.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource+key, then the return contents, then the caveat. The second sentence is dense but every clause documents a return field that no output schema covers, so it earns its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so item by item, plus the not-observed case and citation URL. Combined with full parameter coverage and annotation-backed safety profile, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage (base58, 32-44 characters), so the schema carries the format burden. The description adds only the framing that the mint is the lookup key, which is the baseline expectation rather than new syntactic meaning.

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 (look up), a specific resource (one Solana token launch), the exact key (mint address), and the source register (Chain of Title). The 'by its mint address' framing implicitly separates it from search_ticker_or_name, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 description makes clear you must already have a mint address, which implies when it is applicable, but it never names the sibling tools or states when not to use it (e.g. ticker/name lookup goes elsewhere). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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