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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'This tool is read-only: it never moves funds, needs keys, or signs anything.' More importantly, it adds behavioral depth beyond annotations: it describes the research sources (web, on-chain reads, verified contract source, live market data), explains the recommended_action enum in detail, and provides an example result with a headline and confidence score.

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 lengthy but every sentence earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by trigger scenarios, research sources, output semantics, example, and safety note. The structure is clear and easy to scan despite the density, with no filler or redundancy.

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 nested objects, multiple parameters, and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It fully explains the recommended_action branching, provides a concrete example result, and clarifies the read-only behavior. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, an agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly in a variety of situations.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it does not clarify 'fresh', 'context', 'category', or 'max_wait_s'), though the sample question ('is 0x... a honeypot?') and example output indirectly illustrate typical usage.

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 opens with 'Verify what is actually TRUE about something before you act on it', giving a specific verb and a clear scope (anything you might act on). It also lists concrete examples (sign a transaction, approve allowance, send funds, etc.) and positions itself as a pre-action safety gate, distinguishing it from the many specialized sibling tools like token_security or rug_check.

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?

The description explicitly states 'CALL THIS BEFORE you:' followed by a detailed list of risky actions, providing strong when-to-use guidance. It also explains what to do based on the recommended_action field ('anything other than proceed means do not act yet'). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when to use a specialized sibling instead, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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