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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable interpretive context: entries are findings with evidence, not price verdicts or accusations, and the scan window is 30 days. This goes beyond annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core behavior. The second sentence adds necessary caveats and examples, though it is slightly dense in one long sentence.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main semantics, temporal scope, and intended interpretation of results. The only notable gap is not explaining the 'limit' parameter or output structure, but the provided examples partially compensate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for parameter documentation, but it never mentions the 'limit' parameter. The schema shows only an integer with default 25, leaving unclear whether limit caps tokens, findings, or entries.

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 returning tokens with HIGH or CRITICAL structural risk from scans in the last 30 days, with named findings. It is specific about the resource and scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rh_token_safety or sol_token_detail, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives clear intended use: show what the current wave of bad launches looks like. It also states an explicit when-not ('never as a list to trade against'), but it does not mention alternative tools or when to prefer a sibling over this one.

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