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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new context: cost ($0.002/call), the default chain (base), and the supported address domains (EVM or Solana mint). It stops short of stating rate limits, latency, or behavior on invalid/unsupported addresses, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the verdict/field list and a clear cost figure, then routes to the alternative. Dense but nearly every token earns its place; the 'quick, cheap buy/no-buy' phrasing is slightly redundant with 'Quick token contract risk' at the head.

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 does the work of enumerating return fields, and it discloses cost and chain support for a 2-param tool. The remaining gap is address format/validation and what an error or unsupported-chain response looks like.

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. It does define the 'chain' parameter's domain and default ('EVM (default base) or Solana mint'), which is real added meaning, but it never explains the 'address' parameter's required format or per-chain expectations. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Quick token contract risk' check) and immediately enumerates what it returns: verdict, score 0-100, honeypot, buy_tax, sell_tax, mintable, flag ids, liquidity_usd. It explicitly positions itself against the sibling token_verdict, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both directions of routing: 'Use for a quick, cheap buy/no-buy risk check' versus 'for holders, owner, LP lock and every flag use token_verdict.' The selection condition (depth/cost) is explicit, and the alternative is named.

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