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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is largely given. The description does add genuine context beyond annotations — that the scan is live and free during launch (no key, no payment) — but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or what happens when a surface (e.g. no Safe) is absent.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the checklist of inspected surfaces and the block/cost caveats attached rather than scattered. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 read-only 3-parameter scan with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned surfaces, which tells an agent roughly what comes back. It stops short of describing response shape or error conditions, but the core of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 the schema already explains address, chain and block semantics including the checksum rule and block patterns. The description only restates the block behavior ('at the latest (or a given) block') and adds no meaning on chain selection or how address casing interacts with the call; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Live control-plane scan of an EVM contract') and enumerates exactly what it inspects (EIP-1967 implementation/admin/beacon, owner(), Safe threshold/owners/guard, timelock delay, code size, risk flags). That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like pacta_scan_proposal_diff or pacta_get_live_timelocks, though no sibling is named as an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for a one-shot control-plane posture read on an EVM address at a block. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to pacta_check_preflight for preflight-style checks, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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