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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context — the $0.25 cost and the breadth of the scan — but it omits whether the call is read-only, whether results are cached, latency, and failure behavior for unverified/unlisted tokens. Cost disclosure is a meaningful plus for an annotation-free tool.

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 the value proposition front-loaded and the price at the end where it belongs. Long but every clause names a concrete capability; no filler.

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 preview returns — and it does, listing metadata, ownership, verification, and flag categories plus a plain-English summary. The main residual gap is that it never states this is a read-only report versus anything stateful.

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 compensate. It does supply the valid chain values implicitly ('Base, Ethereum or BNB Smart Chain'), which maps to the base|ethereum|bsc enum, but says nothing about the address parameter's format or required-ness, leaving the regex pattern in the schema to do the work.

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 concrete verb+resource ('one-call token due-diligence') and enumerates the exact checks performed (proxy/upgradeability, owner balances, mint/pause flags), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling token_deep_scan or solana_token_check, so an agent must still infer which one wins.

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 by 'due-diligence' and the chain list; there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to the obvious alternative (token_deep_scan) or to the per-chain base_contract_risk tools. An agent can guess the context but is not guided.

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