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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the heuristic (non-authoritative) nature, the data source ('free public data'), and the cost per call. It still omits what happens on unverified or non-contract addresses, but the scope and limitations are honestly stated.

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 enumerating the checked signals, followed by two short qualifiers (disclaimer, cost). No padding; every clause adds information.

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 exist, so the description must stand in for both — and it usefully enumerates the returned risk categories. It stops short of describing failure modes for unverified contracts or invalid-address behavior.

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 at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'for a Ethereum contract' implicitly tells the agent the address must be a contract rather than an EOA, but no format, chain, or required-address detail is added beyond the schema's 0x pattern.

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?

Specific verb and resource: heuristic risk flags for an Ethereum contract, with an enumerated list of the signals checked (Sourcify verification, proxy/admin, owner type, selectors, bytecode size). It is clearly distinct from ethereum_tx_explain and url_safety_check, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ethereum_address_inspect.

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 naming the resource type (a contract) and by the exclusions 'Not an audit or financial advice', but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing against ethereum_address_inspect / base_contract_risk / bsc_contract_risk. The cost note ($0.01) is a useful selection input but not guidance.

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