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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the verdict is derived from a simulated buy/sell and contract flags, it is heuristic not an audit, error semantics (422 non-token, 5xx unpaid RPC failure), latency bounds, price, free tier, and a prompt-injection warning on returned text. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure the dimension rewards.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and alternatives, and nearly every clause carries distinct information. It is dense and somewhat run-on across a long block, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is little genuine waste.

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 read-only single-verdict tool with an output schema present, the description covers trigger, alternatives, method, uncertainty caveat, errors, latency, cost, and trust posture. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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% with only two params, both documented in-schema (chain enum with default, address pattern). The description names the supported chains but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('token risk check before buying an ERC-20 on Base or Ethereum') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings, token_verdict and check_solana_token_safety. An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Front-loads an explicit 'Use when' trigger, then names the alternatives and the exact condition that selects them (written summary/share card → token_verdict; Solana → check_solana_token_safety). No inference required.

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