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

Discloses live cross-checking, cost ($0.05), and endpoint. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Missing details on rate limits, authentication, or reversibility, but adequate for a read-only verification tool.

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?

Information-dense paragraph with clear first sentence. Could be broken into bullet points, but no wasted words. Appropriate length.

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?

No output schema, but description implies return type (address or impostor status). Missing return format details, error handling, or behavior when neither parameter provided.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds mutual exclusivity context and clarifies each parameter's outcome, supplementing schema.

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?

Description clearly specifies two use cases: given a ticker returns official address, given an address confirms canonical or impostor. Verb 'verify' plus resource 'canonical contract for RH tokens' distinguishes from siblings like rhchain_contract.

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?

States input formats ('Send { ticker } or { address }') and labels itself as anti-scam oracle. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to siblings, but context implies intended use.

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