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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the data source (free public data, implying coverage gaps for unverified contracts), frames results as heuristic flags rather than verdicts, and surfaces a per-call cost. It does not cover behavior on non-contract addresses or reporting confidence thresholds.

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 dense but well-ordered sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then the check list, followed by a short disclaimer and cost note. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the enumeration of checks effectively doubles as a description of what is returned. A brief note on result shape or edge-case handling for non-contract addresses would close the remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it implies the address is a Polygon contract address but never explicitly describes the parameter, its chain constraint, or what happens for EOAs/non-contract addresses. The regex pattern in the schema at least enforces 0x + 40 hex format.

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 resource (a Polygon contract) and enumerates the exact checks performed: Sourcify verification, proxy/admin, owner type, mint/pause/blacklist/fee selectors, bytecode size, and copycat detection. That enumeration makes it clearly distinct from polygon_address_inspect and polygon_token_approvals, which operate on different subjects.

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?

Gives useful usage context: data comes from free public sources, output is heuristic rather than an audit, and each call costs $0.005 — enough for an agent to judge appropriateness and budget. It never names an alternative tool or states when another sibling (e.g. token_deep_scan for token-level concerns) should be preferred instead.

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