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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is a paid tool ($0.05 via x402), it depends on an external provider (GoPlus Security), and it performs live sell tests, which implies latency and external-data dependency. It does not mention rate limits or expected response time.

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 dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core value proposition (score + verdict) before listing components, chains, and cost. Every clause carries information, though the component list is somewhat compressed and could be broken out for scanability.

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 and only two annotations, the description does much of the work: it explains the returned verdict categories, that deductions are explained, the chain coverage, and the payment model. It stops short of describing the response shape or failure modes, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the enum of supported chains. The description's chain list merely restates the enum, so it adds no syntax or format detail beyond structured data; 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?

States a specific outcome ('0-100 safety score and verdict') and enumerates the components it bundles (GoPlus audit, contract scan, liquidity, live sell tests). It implicitly positions itself as a superset of the similar siblings token_audit and token_verdict, but never names them or explicitly says how it differs, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Token due diligence in one call' clearly frames the use case and the multi-chain scope is listed. However, it gives no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. 'use token_audit for the cheap check, this for full diligence'), so the agent must infer when the comprehensive, paid version is justified over lighter siblings.

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