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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing data sources (GoPlus, DAS getAsset), detailed security checks, and chain-specific behavior. It doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics or output format, but the detailed audit list gives a strong picture of what the tool evaluates.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded with the core purpose and densely structured by chain. Although a bit lengthy, every clause adds meaningful detail about checks, usage, and fallbacks, and the organization makes it scannable.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, chain support, and fallbacks well. It does not explicitly describe the return value/format, but the enumerated safety checks and use-case statement give the agent enough context to know what to expect.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying how chain and contract_address interact per network (EVM vs Solana), how to obtain the address, and the fallback path—going beyond the schema without being redundant.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a 'LIVE NFT COLLECTION safety/rug-risk' checker, listing concrete checks for EVM and Solana collections. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like token_security or address_security by explicitly targeting NFT collection safety and even mentions using the collection address from resolve_entity/find_collections.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use for is this NFT collection safe / legit / a scam'. It also specifies required input (collection address), the correct chain parameter for Solana, and gives a clear fallback for unsupported chains ('for chains not covered (e.g. Robinhood) fall back to etherscan_lookup + onchain_lookup').

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