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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the heuristic nature, proxy-following behavior, and that it returns a verdict with per-rule evidence. It also transparently explains the payment requirement and two-step call pattern, providing strong behavioral context beyond a simple 'checks token safety' statement.

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 concise, with three short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then explains the payment flow and pricing alternative without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, output format (verdict with per-rule evidence), the payment mechanism, and an alternative tool. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or edge cases, but for a heuristic check tool with good parameter docs, this is sufficient.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The tool description reiterates the payment flow but does not add any new parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema's x_payment description.

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 it is a heuristic token safety check that follows proxies and scans runtime bytecode, plus ownership and transfer restrictions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nft_scam_check by focusing on rug-pull/honeypot detection and even points to the pricing tool for price-related needs.

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?

The description provides explicit usage instructions for the paid payment flow (call without x_payment to get terms, sign, then call again with x_payment) and mentions the free pricing tool as an alternative for pricing. It doesn't explicitly exclude other sibling tools but gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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