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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden: it implies a read-only inspection and discloses the interesting behaviors (surfacing EIP-7702 delegates, bytecode size, proxy implementation) rather than merely echoing the name. It stops short of stating what happens for a plain EOA, whether token fields are absent for non-token contracts, or which chains are covered — material for a multi-chain lookup tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the object of inspection and the returned-field inventory, then the usage rule. Dense but readable; the colon-separated field list is efficient rather than padded. Slightly awkward as a sentence fragment, but nothing wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the enumerated return fields are partly redundant (though they aid fast scanning). The real gap is the 'chain' parameter, undocumented in both schema and description, which leaves the agent guessing about multi-chain behavior — the one thing needed 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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It says nothing about the required 'address' format or, more importantly, about the optional 'chain' parameter despite it defaulting to 'ethereum' — the agent has no hint about accepted chain identifiers or what the default means.

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 concrete resource (an EVM address) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: address type, EIP-7702 delegate, bytecode size, token standard, token metadata, owner() and proxy implementation. That is far more specific than a name restatement. It does not name sibling tools that overlap (proxy_check, erc20_token_info, read_contract), so differentiation is only implicit through the 'wallet vs contract' framing.

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?

'Use before interacting with an unknown address' gives one clear triggering condition, which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call it. However, no exclusions or alternatives are offered — an agent cannot tell from the description why it should pick this over proxy_check or erc20_token_info.

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