Mint / fee-share status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content beyond them: the three state dimensions the check reports and the precondition that a launch returns HTTP 202 before this is meaningful. It does not describe the response shape or failure modes, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the usage note, with no filler or restatement of the title. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter read-only probe with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide when to call it. A brief indication of what the status response returns (or how a not-yet-launched mint is reported) 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% and the single parameter (mint, with a base58 pattern and length bounds) is fully documented in the schema. The description only implies the mint is the subject of the check, adding nothing about format or provenance, 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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (CREW mint) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: fee-shares locked, Holder KOL open, board presence. That is far more precise than a tautology, but it never names a sibling tool, so separation from the rest of the crew_* family relies on the usage sentence rather than the purpose statement.

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 concrete lifecycle positioning: "Use after launch (HTTP 202) or before wire/lock/crank," which maps onto siblings crew_wire_fees, crew_lock_holder_kol and crew_crank_remits. There is no explicit when-not condition, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough for an agent to place the call correctly.

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