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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds substantial non-annotation context: Base chain, x402 pricing at $0.01/call, the x-credit-token prepaid header for unlimited calls, a 1 free call/day allowance, and no API key requirement. It also discloses the semantic caveat that the age verdict is not a standalone safety judgment.

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-loaded with the core question ('How old is this token?') and the risk framing before the mechanics. The pricing/access block is useful but somewhat extended, and the 'Not financial advice' line is boilerplate, keeping it a step below maximally tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description still covers chain, verdict bands, pairing tools, access/pricing model, and scope limits, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'address' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only restates it as a required input ('Required input: address') without adding format or chain-specific guidance, matching the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (token age, earliest transfer on Base, age-in-days verdict) and enumerates concrete output categories (brand_new/very_new/new/established/mature). It explicitly names the sibling tools it complements ('Pairs with launch-snipers and token-risk'), letting an agent place it without opening either 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?

Gives clear usage context ('a first-order risk input every agent should have before sizing') and a boundary caveat ('Not a safety verdict on its own'), routing the agent to pair it with risk tools. It stops short of explicit when-not or a direct alternative-selection rule, so it lands just below the top.

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