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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: pricing ($0.75 per call), prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, free tier (1 free call/day), and no wallet or API key required. These are invocation-critical details an agent needs and are not present in annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by report contents and pricing. However, phrases like 'The premium flagship' and 'The value is the orchestration + AI synthesis you can't get in one call anywhere else' are marketing fluff that don't carry functional information. It's slightly verbose but still efficient overall.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a complex tool: it enumerates the report components (contract risk, holder concentration, liquidity depth, exit liquidity, OFAC sanctions) and the verdict contents (safety score, tradeability, assessments, factors, risks, positives, recommendation). It also covers pricing and auth. Since an output schema exists, return-value details need not be in the description. Minor gap: no mention of failure conditions or what happens for unsupported tokens, but not critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'Required input: address' which is already in the schema, and adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'address' or 'size' (which the schema already describes as position size for exit check). Therefore the description adds no parameter semantic value.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Institutional-grade full report on a Base token' and enumerates its components (contract risk, holder concentration, liquidity depth, EXIT liquidity, OFAC sanctions). It differentiates itself from the many sibling tools by framing itself as 'the premium flagship' and 'one call runs the FULL battery', making it clear this is the comprehensive alternative to single-purpose tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the full due-diligence battery in one call, as it 'runs the FULL battery' and provides 'AI synthesis you can't get in one call anywhere else.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the positioning as the all-in-one flagship among specialized siblings gives clear usage context.

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