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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add beyond that. It contributes the real, non-annotation detail that each deployment costs $5.00 USDC on Base Mainnet, which materially affects invocation decisions. It does not state irreversibility, wallet/auth requirements, or failure modes, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs verb, resource, chain, and cost with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing selection-relevant information.

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 values need not be explained, and the single enum parameter is fully covered by the schema. The description supplies chain and cost context that an agent needs to choose between the deploy_* siblings. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit routing guidance to the alternatives.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents contractType including its enum values. The description's enumeration of 'escrow, bounty, or agent' adds no syntax or format detail and actually diverges from the enum, so it neither compensates nor extends meaningfully.

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 (Deploys) and resource (smart contracts) plus the target chain (Base Mainnet), which implicitly separates it from the sibling deploy_arc_contract and deploy_solana_contract. It stops short of naming those siblings or explicitly contrasting them, and the listed contract types ('escrow, bounty, or agent') only partially match the enum (which includes subscription and pendle and omits 'agent').

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 chain and price hint at when this tool is appropriate (Base deployments instead of Arc/Solana), and the $5.00 USDC cost is a useful selection signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the alternative deploy tools by name.

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