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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explicitly states the tool is passive ('the address is never contacted') and describes the return structure (findings first, then facts with sources). It also clarifies that the quote parameter returns a price without executing the call, which aligns with the annotation and adds transparency.

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 description is appropriately sized—three sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs useful details (return order, passive nature) without fluff. The flow is logical: usage, output, behavior. A slight deduction for being slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each clause contributes.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, optional quote, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (findings, facts, sources), how it behaves (passive), and when to use it. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only lookup. The description is sufficient for an agent to 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 both address and quote. The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema; it references 'address' contextually but does not elaborate on the quote parameter beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 opens with a clear, specific use case: identifying who is behind an EVM address, typically a token deployer, before trusting its launches. It names the resource (address) and the action (intel lookup) and distinguishes it from siblings like scan_token and osint_lookup by focusing on deployer history and colony measurements.

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 a concrete when-to-use scenario ('before trusting what it launches') and implicitly differentiates from scanning tools by focusing on the address's history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide. A slight deduction for not listing exclusions.

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