Check mint coverage (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine operational context beyond that: the free tier, a <=5s feed-freshness guarantee, and the fact that the response contains availability plus exact prices rather than risk findings. It stops short of rate limits or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the 'Free.' differentiator and the coverage claim, then the usage rule. Every clause carries decision-relevant information with no 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 compensates by stating what is returned (availability and exact prices) and what is not (risk findings), and it scopes inputs to 1-5 mints. For a one-parameter read-only tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 single 'mints' parameter is fully documented in the schema (type, minItems/maxItems, accepted link formats). The description only echoes the 'one to five' cardinality, adding no new syntax or format detail, 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 and resource ('check full live coverage ... for one to five pump.fun mints'), names the scope limit, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the paid siblings by noting it 'returns no risk findings' and is free. An agent can select it over check_pumpfun_risk/check_batch_risk without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use ('right before a paid check') and an explicit when-not/no-value case ('it returns no risk findings'), which is exactly the routing information an agent needs in a 29-tool namespace. Nothing is left to inference.

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