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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses interpretation-critical behavior: found=false means not indexed rather than safe, the miss is queued for reading, deep=true means economics/lock/operator/thesis passes ran, and 'a flag is a finding, not a prediction'. With no output schema this is exactly the semantic context an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by result and edge-case semantics. The single dense paragraph packs many distinct facts, but each clause carries information; only slight over-compression reduces it below a 5.

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 takes on return-value explanation and does it well, covering the safety fields, the move metric, and the fomo payload (counts, recent trades, first buy, no sizes). It stops short of detailing pagination or error shapes, but for a single-address stored read it is essentially 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 coverage is 0% and the single address param has no schema description, but the description supplies the required format ('0x + 40 hex'), which is genuine added meaning. It does not, however, clarify the referenced deep=true flag against the schema, which only exposes address and could confuse an agent into trying to pass it.

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: 'Stored safety read for one Robinhood Chain token', then enumerates exactly what is returned (sellability, launch flags, launch money, move since first log). The 'Never triggers a scan' clause implicitly distinguishes it from sibling rh_scan_now, so an agent can route between the two without opening a 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?

Clear context: it is a stored read that never triggers a scan, and found=false means 'not yet indexed, not safe' with the miss queued. This tells the agent it is a safe non-scanning lookup, but it does not explicitly name rh_scan_now as the alternative for a fresh scan, leaving that routing to inference.

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