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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the $0.01 x402 payment requirement, notes that ERC-20 metadata is best-effort, and clarifies that contract state is checked 'currently.' This supplements the idempotent and non-destructive annotations usefully.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by pricing and a compatibility note. Every sentence provides useful information without padding.

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 relatively simple inspection tool, the description covers the essential purpose, output highlights, pricing, and an important optional parameter. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by stating that code size and ERC-20 metadata are returned, though exact response shape is not specified.

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 high (75%), and the schema documents the optional SALT19 and x402 parameters. The description adds a little clarity by emphasizing that _salt19_operation_id is recommended for x402 compatibility, but it does not substantially deepen understanding of the address parameter beyond what the schema already implies.

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 action and resource: 'Inspect whether a Base address currently has deployed bytecode and return code size plus best-effort ERC-20 metadata.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling balance/status/allowance tools.

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 usage context is implied by the description: use this when you need to know if a Base address has deployed bytecode or obtain ERC-20 metadata. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as base-token-balance or base-transaction-status.

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