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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by detailing the return contract (risk score 0-100, verdict SAFE/SUSPICIOUS/MALICIOUS, top threat flags) and a performance guarantee (<30s). It does not disclose whether external network calls or stored state are involved, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences deliver the action, threat scope, output format, and latency with zero filler. Every phrase contributes information, making it easy to scan and process.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the return values, and it names the EVM scope and default chain through the schema. However, it does not clarify how verdict thresholds are derived or how to interpret the risk score, which is a minor gap for a security-oriented tool.

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%: contract_address is already described as '0x-prefixed EVM contract address to screen' and chain_id as a CAIP-2 chain id with a Base mainnet default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Screen an EVM smart contract address,' and enumerates concrete threat categories (malicious patterns, honeypots, rug mechanics, and known scam frameworks). It closes with clear outputs (risk score, verdict, threat flags) and a time bound that distinguishes it from deeper audit or monitoring tools in its sibling list.

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 phrase 'Completes in under 30 seconds' and the word 'triage' imply a quick pre-screening use case, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus contract_audit or contract_monitor_subscribe, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is present only by implication.

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