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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: GO only when every check ran clean, an outage degrades to HOLD, GO/HOLD return an `enforce` Cobalt condition, pricing at $0.10/call over x402, prepaid x-credit-token for unlimited calls, no free tier, and no API key required. These are operational facts an agent cannot derive from 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?

Front-loads the core verdict semantics (GO/HOLD/STOP, when to call) before pricing/auth details. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries distinct information (outage handling, stock case, enforce, payment). Minor redundancy between the first and later sentences keeps it from 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?

For a high-complexity, paid, multi-check gate with an output schema, the description covers calling conditions, verdict logic, degradation behavior, the tokenized-stock branch, the enforce return, and payment/auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it flags `address` as the required input and ties `amountUsd` to the price-impact/'for your size' check and the enforce behavior around max pool drop. The added semantic framing slightly exceeds the schema text.

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+resource ('one call before you trade') and enumerates exactly what the verdict aggregates: token-risk, sellability (honeypot, tax), swap route, price impact for size, and deployer reputation. This clearly differentiates it from single-purpose siblings like token_risk, sellability, swap_route, and deployer_rep, which it bundles into one GO/HOLD/STOP receipt.

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?

Gives explicit context ('Use before an agent buys or swaps into a Base token') and a directive ('Bind this tool first'), plus the special case for Coinbase tokenized stocks. It does not name alternatives (e.g., pre_trade_bundle, near_pre_trade_gate) or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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