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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses a cost of $0.01 USDC on Base, which is useful, but it does not explain permissions, rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, what happens for unsafe tokens, or what the 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence and wastes no words. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to gaps in behavioral and parameter detail.

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 paid audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It gives usage timing and price but does not explain the audit output, result interpretation, supported-chain behavior, or operational constraints.

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%: the address parameter is described in the schema, while the chain parameter only has an enum and default. The description adds no meaning about the address, the supported chains, or when to use a non-default chain.

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 clear purpose: verifying token contract security, honeypot traps, and buy/sell taxes before a swap. It is specific enough to distinguish auditing from generic token data lookup, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as aegis_priority_audit or aegis_preflight_bundle.

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 'USE WHEN' phrasing gives clear timing: before executing a token swap. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives among the sibling audit tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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