Rug check for up to 25 mints ($0.04 total)

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses billing trigger ('charged when at least one mint is covered and feed lag <= 5 s'), refusal conditions before payment, per-mint coverage behavior, and a 'no flags observed is not a safety guarantee' caveat. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 price and use case, and nearly every clause carries operational information. It is dense and slightly packed into long sentences, but little is wasted.

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 still explains the return shape ('compact check's item plus its verdict word and market') and the partial-coverage case (unavailable listing). Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the batch correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the description restates the essentials (1-25 distinct, mint or pump.fun/gmgn/solscan/birdeye link). It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what happens to a mint outside the live window and that malformed or repeated mints cause refusal, though it does not expand on link parsing syntax.

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 and resource (rug check for 1-25 mints) plus the pricing unit up front. It explicitly contrasts with check_watchlist_risk, so an agent can distinguish it from a close sibling without opening the 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 a concrete trigger ('use when a screener checks a list, some possibly outside the live window') and a cost crossover rule naming the alternative ('from 21 mints up it costs less per mint than check_watchlist_risk'). When-to-use and when-to-prefer-the-alternative are both explicit.

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