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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: nothing is mutated, each call costs $0.01 with the first 25 free, and failed calls are uncharged — consistent with idempotentHint=false. It stops short of describing pagination or the shape of the returned payload.

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 capability, then the usage rule, then failure codes, then pricing — a sensible order. The pricing/credits clause is somewhat dense for a tool description but is actionable for a cost-aware agent, so it largely earns its place.

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 carries the return-value burden; it says it 'names the kind found' but does not describe the response fields (implementation address, admin, beacon). Otherwise complete: cost, failure modes, and scope 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?

One required parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds an example address and clarifies that malformed input yields 400, which is modest 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 — finds the implementation behind a proxy contract on Sei — and enumerates the exact slot/standard families it reads (EIP-1967, beacon, admin, EIP-1822/UUPS, legacy OZ, EIP-1167). Chain prefix in the name plus the standard list clearly distinguishes it from the dozens of per-chain *_proxy siblings.

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 when: 'Use before trusting or decoding a contract whose code can be swapped by its admin', and names the alternative for a different need: 'for a fuller risk verdict use contract_risk'. It also states error semantics (400 malformed, 404 no code) that tell the agent when the call will fail.

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