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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation is read-only ("Reads nothing on-chain"), names the output shape (weighted risk signals and an A-F grade), and discloses cost ($0.05). It stops short of permissions, rate limits, or latency expectations.

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 dense sentence with an em-dash, front-loading the core purpose before enumerating the checks. It is information-rich without padding, though the length and clause density push it slightly past the ideal.

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 composite screening tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential missing context: what is inspected, that it is off-chain only, the return format, and the price. An agent has enough to select and call it correctly; only auth/rate-limit context is absent.

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 documents domain, chain, and tokenAddress thoroughly. The description reinforces how tokenAddress is used (cross-check against addresses printed on the site), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 — off-chain due diligence on a project's web presence — and enumerates exactly what is inspected (domain age, team page, whitepaper, docs, socials, template detection, address cross-check). It clearly distinguishes itself from on-chain rug checkers, but it does not differentiate from web-oriented siblings like domain_intel, detect_tech, or crawl_site, which overlap in surface.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "the contract address you are about to trade" signals a pre-trade screening context, and the composite scope hints at when the full package beats single-purpose tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative among the many overlapping web tools.

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