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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the payment mechanism, the 402 challenge-and-retry flow, batch pricing, no-account/no-API-key requirement, and explicitly states it 'never signs, transfers, or approves anything on the caller's behalf.' These are meaningful behavioral details not carried by the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence carries important operational or behavioral information. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers outputs, inputs, pricing, and safety in a compact, logically ordered block with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, output format, input constraints, supported chains, pricing, authentication model, and read-only guarantees. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already structured, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 description does not need to add parameter meaning; the schema already documents chain defaults and address format. The description does repeat batch semantics but adds no significant new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides.

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 performs 'Contract-level due diligence for an EVM contract address' and enumerates specific checks (verification route, bytecode match, proxy, deployer, capability scan). This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that naturally distinguishes it from the token and wallet sibling tools.

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 establishes a clear context: use for EVM contract source verification and due diligence, including conditions like batch limits and payment. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the contract focus is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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