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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: a per-call price of $0.01 USDC via x402 and the honest caveat that the risk level is a heuristic, which tells the agent not to treat the output as authoritative. It does not mention latency, caching, or whether results are a point-in-time snapshot.

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?

Two dense sentences: the capability list comes first, followed by the usage cue and the cost. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema, and every enumerated check carries decision value for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned so the agent knows what to expect. The remaining gap is that the shape of the 'heuristic risk level' is unspecified (scale, categories), so an agent cannot know how to interpret or threshold the result without calling it.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage ('ERC-20 token contract on Base' with an address pattern). The description's phrase 'unknown token on Base' merely reinforces the same constraint, adding no syntax, format, or validation detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Base token safety pre-check') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected: name/symbol/decimals/supply, owner and renounce status, proxy implementation, privileged function detection, and a heuristic risk level. This enumeration clearly distinguishes it from sibling base_token_price, which covers only price.

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?

'Call before buying or accepting an unknown token on Base' gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., wallet_screen or base_token_price) or stating when-not to use it, so it is strong context but not full routing guidance.

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