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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the per-call x402 payment cost, the supported chains, and the concrete EVM analyses performed (honeypot sell simulation, tax, proxy, liquidity). It stops short of noting rate limits or latency, but the paid-call disclosure is exactly the kind of extra behavior an agent needs.

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, front-loaded with the core capability before the metric list and cost. The metric enumeration is dense but every item earns its place as an output expectation for a tool with no output schema.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing returns by listing the EVM metrics and risk rating, plus cost and chain coverage. The only gap is that Solana is named as supported but no Solana-specific output is described, and the schema's chain enum omits Solana.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no syntax or format detail for 'address' or 'chain' beyond restating supported networks, so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Token risk report with a plain-English AI verdict') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so an agent grasps what it does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-identical siblings like report_token or token_verdict, which an agent might equally pick.

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?

Usage is only implied (risk assessment for a token on the listed chains), with no explicit when-to-use framing and no routing to alternatives such as report_token or token_verdict. The cost disclosure ('$0.009 USDC per call (x402)') is a useful practical hint but is not guidance on selecting this tool over its siblings.

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