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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'live preview' but lacks disclosure of side effects, network calls, auth requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. Behavioral details are minimal.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with 'Free live preview.' However, the brevity is due to lack of substance rather than efficient communication, though it earns points for not wasting words.

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?

With no output schema and minimal description, the tool's return value, behavior, and role among siblings are unclear. The description is too thin for an agent to reliably invoke correctly, especially given the suite of related checkout tools.

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% (only token_address has a description). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'token_address' being an EVM contract address; chain's default is not explained, nor any constraints on token_address format.

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?

Description states 'Free live preview for Fia's paid contract_risk/token-safety checkout path' but does not specify what action is performed (e.g., screening a token contract for risk). It distinguishes as a free preview but the resource is vague, overlapping with sibling token_safety_free_preview.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The description implies a free preview for a paid service but does not state when to choose this over sibling batch checkout tools like contract_risk_batch_checkout or guarded_swap_execute_dry_run_checkout.

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