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

Discloses significant behavior beyond annotations: runs in parallel, returns both underlying results, dedupes risk_flags, provides risk_flags_count, deliberately does not compute composite score, copies fields unchanged, cheaper than separate calls, and mentions payment in USDC on Base. No contradiction with readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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 thorough but not wasteful; every sentence contributes value (purpose, behavior, exclusions, cost). It's front-loaded with the primary use case. However, it is slightly long for a tool description, though justified given the composite nature.

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 an output schema present, return structure is covered. The description covers behavior, cost implications, exclusions, and payment details, making it complete for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect. No critical missing context.

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 both chain_id and contract_address are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implicit reference via the composite nature. Baseline of 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 states a specific verb 'runs... combined security check' and resource 'token_diagnostic'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the two underlying tools (security.token_risk and security.contract_health_audit) and explains it returns both plus deduped flags, making its unique function obvious.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'right before buying or swapping an unfamiliar token... when you need a single-call combined security check'. Provides clear exclusions: 'Do not use for token unlock/vesting risk (use unlocks.dump_risk) or if you only need one of the two checks (call that tool directly and pay less).' Names alternatives directly.

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