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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains that wallets with near-identical launch histories are merged, that rates include a chain baseline, and that the tool intentionally exposes the independent-looking versus distinct-actor collapse. These are valuable non-obvious behaviors.

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 long but packed with substantive detail, and it front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Each clause adds a specific piece of the output contract, and the final sentence, while slightly promotional, reinforces uniqueness rather than repeating structured fields.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the response contains: roles, early-launch counts, rug rate, baseline, and actor-collapse metrics. It omits some structural details like exact result shape or truncation behavior, but the schema's limit parameter already covers truncation reporting, and the existing coverage is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to call the tool.

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 schema itself already documents creator, role, chain, and limit. The description adds conceptual color around 'early' and the analytical outputs, but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema gives. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 names a specific verb ('return'), a precise resource (wallets early in a given creator's launches), and enumerates the exact analytical output: roles, early-launch counts, rug rate, and apparent-versus-true wallet collapse. This differentiates it decisively from sibling tools like groundtruth_scan_coin or groundtruth_scorecard, and the closing claim that this is 'the analysis no other source produces' reinforces its unique purpose.

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 opening 'Given one creator address' establishes a clear and concrete trigger for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or state when not to use it, but the described one-creator scope and unique outputs provide a strong contextual cue that separates it from batch or index tools.

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