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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description mostly restates that ('reads or computes only and changes nothing') and explains cost (which belongs to pricing, not behavior), while adding little on response shape beyond 'names the kind found'. Error semantics (400 malformed, 404 no code, uncharged) are the one genuinely new behavioral detail.

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 what it reads and when to use it; the pricing/free-tier sentence is long but decision-relevant. Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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 only gestures at the return value ('names the kind found'). It is otherwise complete for a one-param, read-only resolver — enumeration of standards, error codes, and cost are all covered.

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?

Single param with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example address and ties the parameter to failure modes ('a malformed address is 400'), which adds real value beyond the schema's '0x contract address'.

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 — resolving the implementation behind a proxy contract on Gnosis — and enumerates exactly which slots/standards it reads (EIP-1967 implementation/beacon/admin, EIP-1822 UUPS, legacy OpenZeppelin, EIP-1167 minimal proxy). This unambiguously separates it from sibling readers like gnosis_storage or gnosis_call.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use before trusting or decoding a contract whose code can be swapped by its admin') and names the escalation path ('for a fuller risk verdict use contract_risk'). It also implies when-not: it is a resolution step, not a risk assessment.

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