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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful operational context by mentioning the $0.495 USDC fee via x402 on Base/Solana, but it does not disclose details like rate limits, execution time, or whether an address is treated differently from source code.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear purpose statement followed by an essential pricing/payment note. Both sentences earn their place, and there is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: audit focus, supported languages, input form, and cost. It could be more complete by noting any constraints or exclusions, such as network/chain limitations, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter, code, as 'Smart contract source code (Solidity or Rust/Anchor) or contract address to audit.' The description repeats the supported languages but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states an audit function for smart contracts, specifying deep invariant analysis, CEI checks, and severity breakdown for Solidity and Rust/Anchor contracts. It is specific about the resource and method, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling audit-related tools like order.commercial_audit or security.honeypot_check.

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 clear context: use this tool to perform a security-focused invariant audit on Solidity or Rust/Anchor smart contracts, with code or an address as input. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is clear enough.

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