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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output shape (a 0-100 risk score) and the cost per call, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or any failure modes. It adds some value but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the key risk categories and includes the useful pricing information. There is no fluff, though the structure is a dense list rather than organized guidance.

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 relatively simple two-parameter tool, the description provides enough to understand the general purpose and call it. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify the full return structure or whether a higher score means higher risk, which is important for interpreting results.

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 undocumented parameters. It implies the tool inspects a token contract, which maps to 'address', and the risk analysis is chain-dependent, implying 'chainId', but it never explicitly names or explains either parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a token security check, listing specific risk factors (honeypot, taxes, mintable, proxy, owner powers, holder concentration) and a 0-100 risk score. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on yields and stablecoin pegs, even though no sibling comparison is made explicitly.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description is purely factual about what it checks and its price, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name and siblings.

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