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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by disclosing the pricing model ($0.001, x402) and the failure behavior for unverified contracts (404, not charged). It also names the data source (Sourcify) and proxy-resolution behavior, adding real operational context.

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 dense, front-loaded lead sentence covers the resource and return contents, followed by two short sentences for the error and pricing behavior. Minimal waste, though the lead sentence is long.

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 carries the return-value burden well, enumerating compiler/deployment/signatures/proxy output and the source-size bound. Pricing and error handling are covered, so little is left for the agent to guess.

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 meaning: 'proxy resolution to the implementation ABI' clarifies resolve_proxy and 'optional Solidity/Vyper source' clarifies include_source, giving purpose beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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+resource ('Verified smart-contract ABI ... from the Sourcify registry') and enumerates exactly what is returned (compiler, deployment, function/event signatures, proxy resolution). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like token_audit or explain_transaction.

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 context (verified contracts on supported EVM chains, sourced from Sourcify) but never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives such as token_audit or simulate_tx. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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