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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the computation method (zero-address mints+burns over a window, annualised vs live totalSupply), the 'rate not intent' caveat, and access/pricing behavior ($0.03 x402, prepaid header, 1 free/day, no key).

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 distinction is front-loaded in the opening clause, and most sentences carry load. It is fairly long and includes pricing/promo and 'Not financial advice' boilerplate that is tangential, but the structure is deliberate rather than padded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies method, verdict scale, interpretation caveats, required input, and access model, so an agent has everything needed to call and trust it.

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% and both params (address, days default 30/max 45) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'required input: address' and refers vaguely to 'a window', adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 analytical verb and resource ('is it minting, and how fast') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling owner_powers ('says the CAN mint; this says whether they ARE'). An agent can tell exactly what question this tool answers without opening the 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?

Names the alternative tool (owner_powers) and the precise condition that selects this one instead, plus the honest caveat about legitimate bridge/staking/LP mints so the agent interprets the verdict correctly. No explicit 'when not to use' list, but routing is clear.

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