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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses the data source (free public data, i.e. no privileged indexing), the cost ($0.005), and the epistemic limits (heuristic, not an audit, not financial advice). It stops short of stating read-only behavior explicitly or describing failure modes for non-contract addresses.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with what the tool returns and closes with the disclaimer and price. The mid-sentence list is dense but every item is a concrete signal, so little is wasted; only slight readability loss from packing six checks into one clause.

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 exists, so the description should carry the return shape. The enumerated signals hint at the flags returned, and cost/disclaimer are covered, but nothing says how flags are presented (booleans, severities, aggregated score) or how an address with no contract code is handled.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole parameter. The regex in the schema documents the 0x+40-hex format, but the description adds no meaning about whether an EOA or a non-C-Chain address is acceptable, nor what happens if the address has no bytecode.

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 resource (Avalanche C-Chain contract) and a specific output (heuristic risk flags), then enumerates the exact signals checked: Sourcify verification, proxy/admin, owner type, mint/pause/blacklist/fee selectors, bytecode size, copycat detection. This clearly separates it from avalanche_address_inspect or token_deep_scan without the agent needing to open a 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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated checks — an agent can infer it is for pre-interaction contract due diligence. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as avalanche_address_inspect, token_deep_scan, or avalanche_token_approvals. The only boundary given is the 'not an audit' caveat, which limits claims rather than directing tool choice.

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