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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses the cost ($0.005), implies a read-only inspection, and pre-announces the notable output — proxy standards detected and a copycat-token flag. It does not cover failure behavior for malformed addresses or whether results are cached, which keeps it short of 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 with no filler, and the highest-value facts (what is inspected, what comes back, the cost) are front-loaded. The facet list is long but each item earns its place by signaling a return field.

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, so the description must enumerate return contents — which it does across account type, balance, nonce, proxy implementation, token metadata, and copycat flag. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; only error/invalid-address handling is 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?

Only one parameter and the schema pattern (^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$) already pins the format precisely, so the baseline is high. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the address is a Polygon-chain address, which the schema itself cannot express. That is a small but real addition beyond 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?

Specific verb ('Inspect') plus a specific resource ('any Polygon address'), followed by an enumeration of exactly what is resolved: account type (EOA/contract/EIP-7702), POL balance, nonce, proxy standard, and ERC-20 metadata. The chain prefix plus the facet list make it cleanly distinguishable from siblings like polygon_contract_risk, polygon_token_approvals and polygon_tx_explain.

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 only implied: 'Inspect any Polygon address' tells the agent the input domain but not when to prefer this over polygon_contract_risk or token_deep_scan, which overlap on contract/token facets. No exclusions or routing conditions are given, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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