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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the important non-obvious behavior: a $0.02 USDC payment on Base via x402. It does not say whether the call is read-only, what happens on unpaid first call, whether results are cached, or how the flags are surfaced in the response.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the commercial constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 and no annotations, so the description bears the burden. Enumerating the flag categories is helpful, but it never describes the shape of the result (score? per-flag booleans? severity?) or the two-step payment handshake, leaving real gaps for a paid tool.

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 67%; the chain parameter already lists supported values and x402_payment explains the omit-to-get-terms flow. The description adds only the payment amount/asset, and says nothing about the undocumented 'address' parameter (e.g., that it must be a verified contract address).

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+resource ('Smart-contract risk scan') and enumerates the check categories it covers (proxy/admin, owner, mint, blacklist, pause, fee-change, trading toggle). The 'contract' framing inherently distinguishes it from token_risk and address_label, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this scan versus token_risk or wallet_report, and no preconditions beyond the cost. The agent must infer that this applies to a deployed contract address rather than a token or wallet.

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