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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses latency (1-3s), the output form (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH with reasons), and the full scope of analysis. It stops short of stating side effects/auth needs, but as a read-style analysis tool the behavioral profile is largely conveyed.

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?

Front-loads the payoff (fast risk verdict) and then lists the dimensions checked and supported chains without filler. Dense but every clause earns its place for an agent deciding whether to call.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return shape (verdict tier plus reasons). Combined with supported chains and check dimensions, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by mapping supported chain IDs to networks (1 Ethereum, 8453 Base, etc.), which directly informs the chainId parameter beyond the schema's bare 'EVM chain id' note.

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?

States a specific verb (risk verdict) and resource (ERC-20 token) and enumerates exactly what it checks: ownership control, proxy upgradeability, admin powers, source verification, and liquidity. This differentiates it clearly from generic siblings like scan_contract or address_info, letting an agent pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear activation context ('before buying it'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., scan_contract for a general contract scan) or states exclusions, so routing between siblings still requires inference.

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