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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it is partial, depends on public signature DBs, leaves unknown selectors unresolved, and treats bytecode as ground truth. It also clarifies proxy handling in the schema. The description is honest about limitations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value—scope, method, limitations, and usage context are all covered without 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?

Given the tool's specialized nature and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, limitations, and alternatives. It doesn't need to describe return values because the output schema handles that, and it gives actionable guidance for edge cases.

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 coverage is 100% with meaningful descriptions for both chain and address, including proxy guidance. The description adds no parameter-specific details but isn't required to since the schema already provides thorough semantics.

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?

Clearly states the tool reconstructs a partial function/event interface from bytecode for EVM contracts, with specific outputs (PUSH4 selectors and topic0 hashes) and no source/verification requirement. Distinguishes itself from a full ABI and mentions decompilation as an alternative for unresolved selectors.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to understand what an unknown contract does before trusting behavior-based guesses') and when not to rely on it (not a full ABI; use decompile for novel/proprietary selectors). This provides clear context and exclusions.

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