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 data source (free public data), the heuristic nature of the results, an explicit limitation ('Not an audit or financial advice'), and even the cost ($0.005). It stops short of stating read-only status explicitly or describing latency/rate-limit behaviour, keeping it below a 5.

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 plus two short caveat clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose before the signal enumeration. Every listed check is informative rather than filler, though the enumeration is long enough to push slightly past ideal length.

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?

There is no output schema, but the enumerated checks effectively map to what the agent should expect back, and the cost and disclaimer cover the remaining decision-relevant facts. The main gap is return structure (e.g., how flags are presented or scored), which the agent must infer.

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 Optimism contract' establishes that the address is a contract on Optimism, but it does not clarify whether EOAs are valid input or how invalid/non-contract addresses are handled beyond the regex pattern in the schema.

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 Optimism contract') and 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 siblings like optimism_address_inspect and optimism_token_approvals, which do not assess contract risk.

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 phrase 'from free public data' and the caveat 'Not an audit or financial advice', which tells the agent this is a preliminary screening tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over optimism_address_inspect or token_deep_scan, nor any prerequisite or exclusion statement.

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