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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by noting that all reads occur 'at one resolved block,' which matches the block_tag schema and indicates consistent snapshot semantics. No annotation contradictions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb 'Inspect' immediately states the action. Every phrase contributes (chain, resource, specific inspection targets, block scope), with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only annotations, a rich output schema, and full param schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's scope. It specifies all major inspection targets and the block resolution behavior, leaving no obvious gaps for an informed agent.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description's mention of 'one resolved block' reinforces the block_tag behavior but does not add new parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Inspect') on a specific resource ('Base mainnet contract') and enumerates concrete data aspects: bytecode, token metadata, and ERC-165/721/1155 interface signals. This differentiates it from sibling tools like base-contract-read or base-block-inspect.

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 implies when to use this tool (inspecting contract-level details at a specific block) but does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools. It provides clear context of its purpose, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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