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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the burden. The description adds the qualifier that the source is 'verified', implying behavior for unverified contracts but without stating it. No contradiction exists, but there is little extra behavioral context beyond the schema and 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?

Single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is easily scanned and every word 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?

For a low-complexity read-only tool with no output schema, the description states the core return value ('verified source code and metadata') and the schema covers parameter defaults. It lacks an explicit note about unverified contracts or chainid behavior, but these are minor given annotations. Complete enough for a simple call.

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%, so both address and chainid are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('verified source code and metadata for a contract address'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_contract_abi, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but relies on the reader to infer differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over get_contract_abi, get_contract_creation, or other sibling tools. The description only states what it does, not when to use it or when not to. This leaves selection to inference.

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