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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses cost ($0.005) and the fact that it is a read-only inspection surface, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g. non-Base or malformed addresses), rate limits, or whether results are cached.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned data points and the price. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of enumerating returned fields, and it adds the cost. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/edge-case behavior is left unaddressed.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the regex pattern in the schema conveys format but nothing else. The description implies the argument is an address on Base ("any Base address") but adds no detail about required format, checksum handling, or whether a contract address is required.

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 ("Inspect") and resource ("any Base address") and enumerates exactly what is reported: account type, ETH balance, nonce, proxy standard, and ERC-20 metadata. This implicitly separates it from base_contract_risk, base_token_approvals and base_tx_explain, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer base_contract_risk or base_tx_explain instead. The only conditional information is the price, which is not usage guidance.

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