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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds semantics they cannot: the exact decision rule for known_bad (published set AND >=5 resolved launches AND >=1.5x chain baseline) and the crucial null-vs-false distinction meaning 'not in our count'. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 batch capability and the sibling alternative, and every sentence carries weight. The known_bad explanation is dense but justified since it encodes the core decision logic; slightly long, but not 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back — it does, listing each row field and explaining the known_bad tri-state. For a read-only batch screen, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents chain enum, default, address formats, and the 200-item cap. The description reinforces the creator-address input but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (screen), resource (creator addresses), and scope (up to 200 in one call), then enumerates the compact per-row outputs (launches, rug rate, chain baseline, multiple, wallet ties, operator collapse). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling groundtruth_screen_creator, so an agent can pick between them 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 an explicit routing rule: 'Use this instead of calling groundtruth_screen_creator in a loop.' The batch boundary (up to 200) is stated up front, so the agent knows both when to choose this tool and when to fall back to the single-creator call.

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