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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the tool evaluates multiple risk factors and returns a rating among three categories. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid or absent parameters, or whether the result is based on live or cached data.

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 description is a single dense sentence with no filler, and it front-loads purpose and output categories. The only redundancy is repeating the tool name in the description, which is a minor issue.

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 tool with no output schema and all three parameters optional, the description should clarify which inputs are needed and what the response looks like beyond a rating label. It also leaves 'new token' undefined and provides no fallback or error behavior, making it hard for an agent to reliably construct a correct call.

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 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description names due-diligence factors but does not clarify how chain, token, and address map to those factors or which combination is required. The schema's 'to process' descriptions are minimal but technically present.

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 clearly identifies a specific action and resource: due-diligence on new tokens, enumerates the checked factors (age, holder/creator concentration, liquidity, tax, honeypot, CEX listing), and states the outcome classes (TRADEABLE/CAUTION/AVOID). It is self-explanatory on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping sibling tools like token-rugcheck or token-risk-report.

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?

Usage is implied for new-token due-diligence, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given many overlapping token-analysis siblings, the description gives no criteria for choosing this tool over alternatives such as token-risk-report, token-rugcheck, or token-security.

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