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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false) it discloses HTTP error semantics (400 malformed, 404 no code) and that both are uncharged, plus the pricing model, first-25-free tier, and that repeats are billed. The only thing not covered is the response shape / what a 'not a proxy' answer looks like, but the description otherwise adds substantial operational context annotations don't provide.

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 purpose and the detection methods, then usage, then errors and pricing. Every clause is informative, though the pricing/credits tail is slightly long for a tool-selection description and could be compressed.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still conveys the return content ('names the kind found'), the failure modes, cost, and side-effect profile. For a one-parameter read-only lookup, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% for the single address parameter, so baseline is 3; the description goes further with a concrete example address and the validation outcome for a malformed one, which tells the agent the expected format and failure mode. Remaining gap is it never states whether checksummed or lowercase input is accepted.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find the implementation behind a proxy contract on Berachain', then lists exactly which storage slots and standards it reads (EIP-1967, beacon/admin, EIP-1822/UUPS, OZ legacy, EIP-1167). This clearly separates it from siblings like beara_storage or beara_is_contract, which read generic state or existence.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use before trusting or decoding a contract whose code can be swapped by its admin', plus a named alternative for a different need ('for a fuller risk verdict use contract_risk'). It also states when it does not apply by tying the value to upgradable contracts.

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