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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), yet the description adds substantial operational detail: $0.005 USDC per call with free errors, which sources are free vs. RPC, the null-with-a-note policy for unavailable values, the mandatory disclaimer, and 400-not-charged on invalid input. That is real context an agent cannot get from 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?

Dense but almost every clause carries information; the pricing bracket is front-loaded so cost is known before commitment. It is a single run-on block, though, which makes the source list harder to scan than a short bulleted breakdown would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns and it does: riskScore, riskLevel, short reasons, the disclaimer field, and the null-with-note convention. Combined with error behavior and default parameter value, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description ('ERC-20 contract address on Base (default USDC)') is already complete, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing further about the address parameter, making baseline 3 the right score.

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?

Names a specific resource (a Base ERC-20 contract) and a specific operation (decision-support risk heuristic), then enumerates exactly what is inspected: bytecode admin functions, owner()/paused(), proxy detection, source verification, age, holder concentration, DEX liquidity. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like base_token_info, which describes a token rather than scoring its risk.

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 context for use is clear (assessing risk of a Base ERC-20 before interacting) and it names its data sources, but it never explicitly routes the agent between this and base_token_info or launchcheck_full. No when-not-use guidance is given beyond the invalid-input error case.

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