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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the payment requirement (price 0.01 USDC, pay first, then pass payment_signature) and lists supported chains. It implies a read-only report generation without destructive actions, which is reasonable given the context, though not explicitly stated. The disclosure of the payment prerequisite is a significant behavioral trait beyond what schema would imply.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('ERC-20 on-chain report'), then lists supported chains and the payment requirement. Every sentence carries essential information, making it efficient and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description outlines the report content (metadata, supply, transfer activity, optional pool depth) and the payment prerequisite. It doesn't explain error handling or output format details, but for a report tool with 5 parameters, it covers the essential operational context. The payment flow is a critical prerequisite and is well disclosed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the payment_signature parameter's role ('pay first, then pass payment_signature') and mentions 'optional pool depth' aligning with the pool parameter. It doesn't detail blocks or token further, but schema descriptions already cover those. The added payment flow context slightly exceeds baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'ERC-20 on-chain report' with specific content (metadata, supply, transfer activity, optional pool depth) and supported chains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_dd or pool_risk, which focus on other aspects. The verb and resource are explicit.

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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional pool depth but doesn't explain when a user would choose this over sibling tools like pool_risk or contract_dd. The payment flow is described, but that's operational, not comparative.

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