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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it names the data source (free public data / Sourcify), discloses the cost ($0.005), and bounds expectations ('heuristic', 'not an audit or financial advice'). Missing details are minor — no mention of caching, rate limits, or freshness of the data.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the check list, disclaimer, and price. Every clause carries information, though the long comma-delimited enumeration is slightly harder to scan than a structured list would be.

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 must carry the burden — and it largely does by listing exactly which risk signals are returned and adding the cost and disclaimer. What's absent is any indication of return shape (field names, score scale, pass/fail semantics), which an agent would still need to guess.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, though the schema supplies type and a 0x-address regex. The description implies the input must be an Arbitrum contract address but adds no format, casing, or checksum guidance beyond what the schema pattern already enforces.

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 ('heuristic risk flags for an Arbitrum contract') and enumerates the exact checks performed (Sourcify verification, proxy/admin, owner type, mint/pause/blacklist/fee selectors, bytecode size, copycat detection). This clearly separates it from arbitrum_address_inspect (general address) and token_deep_scan, and the chain is explicit.

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?

Use is implied by the enumerated checks and the disclaimer 'Not an audit or financial advice', which tells the agent this is a lightweight pre-screen. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling arbitrum_address_inspect or token_deep_scan, nor any stated prerequisites.

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