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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds materially beyond them: per-call pricing and free-tier limits, the x402 payment-required result, isError behavior on invalid input or upstream failure (not charged), and precisely which flags drain buyers. This is rich disclosure of cost, failure, and output semantics.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then flags, inclusions, use cases, pricing, and errors in a logical sequence; each segment is information-bearing. It is dense and somewhat long, but not padded, so it stays readable.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: pricing/limits, error handling, which flags matter, and sibling routing. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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 100% with both parameters documented, including the full chain enum and the ERC-20 address pattern. The description only adds the '15+ EVM chains' framing, which is redundant with the schema's enum list, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Honeypot and scam check for any ERC-20') with concrete scope ('15+ EVM chains') and enumerates the exact checks performed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling token_risk by chain ecosystem, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Includes a dedicated 'When to use' clause: ERC-20s here, Solana tokens via token_risk. It also gives cost context ($0.005/call, 10 free/day, x402 on payment-required) and error semantics, covering when to call and what to expect.

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