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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the 1-1,000 block scan window, the default of 50 blocks, the 100-log return cap, and the payment/cost model including free failed calls. This is substantial behavioral context for a read-only but paid, non-idempotent call.

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?

The core purpose, limits, and alternative are front-loaded and easy to scan. The pricing and example details are useful but make the description longer than strictly necessary for tool selection.

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?

For a simple three-parameter log query with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, scan limits, cost behavior, and the main alternative. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only a small amount beyond it, mainly that topic0 is a 32-byte event signature hash and an example address, while mostly repeating the block range and defaults.

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?

The description states a specific operation: recent contract event logs on Sonic via eth_getLogs, and explains what is returned. It also distinguishes this from sonic_receipt for single-transaction outcomes, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening schemas.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('watch transfers or contract events') and explicitly routes single-transaction outcome checks to sonic_receipt. It does not mention the more specific sonic_token_transfers sibling, so the alternative guidance is strong but not complete.

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