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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not disclose any side effects or state changes. It lists analysis capabilities but omits whether results are stored, if external APIs are called, or any limitations. The idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false provide some safety context, but the description adds no additional behavioral caveats.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a compact enumeration of outputs without extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers input constraints and provides a detailed list of return data. It doesn't mention execution time, prerequisites, or failure scenarios, but the enumerated outputs give a solid understanding of expected results.

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 description clarifies that 'addresses' accepts up to 3 EVM addresses and specifically handles proxy/implementation pairs, supplementing the schema. The chain_id parameter is well-described in the schema, and the description's mention of EVM and Base helps contextualize it.

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 it runs a full 5-phase security audit on up to 3 EVM addresses, distinguishing it from lighter sibling audit tools. It also enumerates specific output components, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 frames the tool as a 'full' audit that handles EIP-1167 proxy pairs, indicating it is intended for comprehensive security reviews. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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