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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds the key behavior beyond the annotations: this is an async/stateless job pattern where the same inputs are re-submitted to poll for completion. It doesn't state auth or cost requirements, but the polling semantics are the non-obvious trait.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the usage/polling caveat. No filler; every clause carries instruction value.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and it does supply the async polling behavior. Remaining gaps (when to prefer this over check_token_security, any auth/cost notes) are minor but present.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully clarifies that chain must be supported (enum enumerates it) and that address is a contract address, not a ticker. However, it adds no format guidance for the address string (20-128 chars) beyond that constraint.

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 set (run/resume) and resource (exact-contract Forensics), and the 'exact-contract ... not a ticker' phrasing distinguishes it from ticker/asset-level siblings like research_asset. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is concrete enough for an agent to identify the tool.

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 actionable when-to-use guidance: pick a supported chain plus a contract address rather than a ticker, and repeat identical inputs if research is still running. It clarifies the resume condition but offers no explicit exclusion against overlapping siblings (check_token_security, research_asset).

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