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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds that a report is returned in a 'signal-first' shape and that multi-chain coverage exists, but says nothing about latency, cost, rate limits, or what the report actually contains beyond the listed signals.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the domain, then the returned signals, then the supported chains. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only scanner with a fully documented schema, the description covers what is scanned, on which chains, and the general shape of the return ('signal-first report'). It is nearly complete; a brief note on the risk-score scale or what 'signal-first' means would close the remaining gap.

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 both the chain enum and the address format already documented in the schema. The description's 'EVM or Solana token' phrasing reinforces the address-format duality but adds no syntax or default-value detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Crypto token due-diligence') and enumerates the exact risk dimensions covered: honeypot/rug risk score, ownership, liquidity, and holder concentration. It also names the supported token universes (EVM or Solana), so an agent can distinguish it from unrelated siblings like wallet_pnl or smart_money at a glance.

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?

'Due-diligence' implies the context of use (vetting a token before interacting with it), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. Usage is inferable from the purpose rather than stated, which lands at the minimum-viable level.

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