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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses data sources ('free public data'), what it checks (Sourcify verification, proxy/admin, owner type, selectors, bytecode size), and importantly states it's 'Not an audit or financial advice' – setting expectations. Also mentions cost ($0.01). Missing: rate limits, timeouts, or output format detail.

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?

One sentence plus two short clauses, front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words.

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 heuristic check tool with no output schema, the description lists the heuristics and sets expectations (not an audit). Missing: output format or structure, but since no output schema, the description could say more about what the flags look like. Still fairly complete.

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 0%, but only 1 parameter. The description doesn't explain the 'address' parameter format (0x-prefixed 40 hex chars). However, the parameter is self-evident from the schema pattern. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but here 1 param with no description. Description doesn't add semantics beyond schema, but schema is self-explanatory. Score 4.

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 a Base contract from free public data'. The scope is clear and it's distinguishable from sibling tools like bsc_contract_risk and ethereum_contract_risk by chain (Base).

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?

Implicitly indicates usage: risk assessment for a contract. But no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., vs base_address_inspect). No exclusions or conditions stated.

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