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

Beyond the read-only/open-world annotations, the description adds that the tool is free, returns stored rather than fresh data, includes verdict levels, failed/warned check names, and scan time, and notes that most funded new launches are scanned within minutes. This is substantial behavioral context with no contradiction.

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 four tight sentences, front-loaded with cost and result type, then recency expectations, then explicit routing to alternatives. Every sentence adds information without 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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, how fresh the data is, and when to use sibling tools instead. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so nothing important is missing for an agent to call this simple read tool 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 schema already documents the token address pattern and chain enum with default. The description names the supported chains but adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific resource and return value: ChainK9's latest stored verdict for a token on four named chains, including failed/warned check names and scan time. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the paid report tool and the fresh-check scan variants.

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?

It gives clear routing guidance: use the paid report tool for evidence behind each check, and use scan-lite, scan, or scan-ultra for a fresh check. The opening 'Free' and 'latest stored' signal when this tool is the right choice.

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