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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, open-world read, so the description builds on that by disclosing chain IDs (4663/5042/56), that the response's first line names the chain, and that findings are ranked against/careful/clear. That is meaningful context about output behavior and detection fallback not present in the 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?

The purpose and chain list are front-loaded in the first clause, and the following per-chain clauses are dense but substantive since there is no output schema to convey return shape. It is long and somewhat run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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 carries the full burden of describing what comes back, and it does so thoroughly per chain (dev history, snipers, tax exemptions, authorities, holders, curve/pool). An agent knows both how to call it and roughly what to expect.

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 both parameters (chain enum with IDs, address pattern) are already fully documented. The description's note that omitting chain lets Toll detect it largely echoes the schema's own wording, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured data.

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 (check) and resource (one token) and immediately enumerates exactly what it reveals per chain, so its scope is unambiguous. It is clearly distinguished from narrower siblings like dev_record or launch_record because it aggregates both dev and launch intelligence for a single token.

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 context is clear: this is the tool for vetting one specific token across four named chains, and it explains that the chain can be auto-detected when omitted. However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it, so an agent facing overlapping siblings (launch_record, dev_record, wallet_privacy) gets no explicit routing rule.

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