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

Even though annotations are absent, the description discloses critical behaviors: it returns source code, formats it as Markdown, and does not write to disk. This transparently signals a side-effect-free generation process. It stops short of mentioning more subtle behaviors (e.g., output length or dependency on network), but is strong for a code generator.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences convey purpose, return format, and side-effect involvement. Every phrase adds value, with the key information front-loaded.

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?

For a code-generation tool, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it does, what it returns, and what it doesn't do (write to disk). The input schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema is present, so the text appropriately focuses on the generation outcome. It could mention deployment explicitly, but that is reasonably implied by 'returns source code.'

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 high (83%) and includes detailed explanations for nested objects like 'access' and 'macros'. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly states the tool's function ('Make a custom smart contract') and explicitly notes the output (source code in a Markdown code block). The term 'custom' distinguishes it from the sibling template-based tools, making its unique role clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings like cairo-erc20 or cairo-governor. The word 'custom' implies a fallback for non-standard contracts, but the description never states criteria, exclusions, or alternatives.

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