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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar, and the description still adds substantial context: pricing ($0.02 per call over x402 on Base), auth requirements (prepaid x-credit-token header, 1 free call/day), no-wallet/no-API-key requirement, and the specific heuristic signals (volume/liquidity ratio, buy/sell symmetry, price movement) that drive the score. No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured flow from purpose to heuristics to output to input to pricing, and every content block earns its place. The opening rhetorical question delays the functional statement slightly, and the pricing sentence packs three facts into one long clause, but there is no real waste.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers what data is read, the interpretive heuristics, the score/verdict output, the required input, and the commercial access terms. The heuristic explanation adds interpretive value that an output schema alone would not convey, so nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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% — the schema already documents 'address' as 'Token contract address.' The description only restates 'Required input: address,' adding no format, domain, or usage detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema carries the full semantic weight.

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 pair: 'Reads the deepest pool's 24h volume, buy/sell counts, liquidity and price move, and scores how organic the activity looks.' The wash-trading authenticity focus cleanly distinguishes it from near-neighbor risk tools like rug_score, and the 0-100 suspicion score + verdict output is pinned down. The opening rhetorical question is stylistic, but the functional core is precise and unambiguous.

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 use case is implied through scenario framing ('classic wash-trading signatures used to bait buyers' suggests pre-trade due diligence), but no sibling tool is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. This is a real gap given many overlapping siblings (rug_score, pre_trade_gate, sellability, safe_to_send) that an agent could confuse it with.

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