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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cache bypass, priority execution, and a concrete price point ($0.05 USDC on Base). It does not explain payment/auth mechanics, failure behavior, or what an audit result contains.

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 front-loaded USE WHEN sentence with no wasted words, embedding cost and freshness up front. It is terse to the point of omitting operational detail, but nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the 'why' (freshness, priority, cost) but not the 'how' (payment flow, expected return shape, per-chain differences). Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it confidently.

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 50%: chain is self-documenting via enum and default, while address has its own description. The description adds no meaning to either parameter — no note on address format per chain or which chain values are meaningful for the priority path. Baseline 3 fits.

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 and resource: a multi-oracle token security audit, qualified as 100% fresh, un-cached, and priority-executed. That scope distinguishes it from the plainer aegis_token_audit sibling, although it never names the alternative explicitly.

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 an explicit use condition: a sniper bot or high-frequency trading agent that requires a fresh, un-cached audit. That is a clear context for selection. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or routing to aegis_token_audit for cheaper, cached lookups.

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