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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Reads or computes only and changes nothing' and the crucial cost caveat 'each call is charged, so repeats are not free,' which explains the non-idempotent hint. It also adds pricing, the first-25-free allowance, and error code behavior—context not present in 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and covered standards, followed by the when-to-use rule, error semantics, example, and pricing. Dense but every sentence carries actionable information; pricing and free-call details are relevant because charging affects repeat-call behavior.

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, and the description partly compensates by saying it 'names the kind found' and lists the slots/bytecode it inspects. It could be clearer about the returned structure (e.g., fields for implementation address, admin, proxy type), but the combination of annotations, full param docs, and error semantics leaves little ambiguity for a single-parameter read tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'address' parameter is documented as '0x contract address.' The description only adds a concrete example address to confirm the expected format; it does not deepen semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find the implementation behind a proxy contract on Ink') and enumerates exactly which storage slots and proxy standards it reads (EIP-1967, beacon, admin, EIP-1822/UUPS, OpenZeppelin legacy layout, EIP-1167). This clearly separates it from ink_is_contract, ink_storage, ink_call, and its per-chain proxy siblings such as eth_proxy and base_proxy.

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 precondition ('Use before trusting or decoding a contract whose code can be swapped by its admin') and names the alternative tool with its selection condition ('for a fuller risk verdict use contract_risk'). It also discloses error semantics (400 malformed, 404 no code), which helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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