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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive and open-world source, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it explains how to interpret results (no keys besides one-use gift-link keys means nobody can sign as the contract) and distinguishes final code from upgradeable code with its DAO council, vote threshold and timelock. It omits any note on latency, failure modes, or how a chain read might error.

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 hook question is front-loaded and every clause in the following enumeration adds a distinct verifiable fact rather than restating the title. The single sentence is dense, with stacked parentheticals (NEP-330, Sputnik DAO council) that make it harder to scan, but no clause is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does so field by field, including the interpretation rule for access keys and the meaning of 'final' versus upgradeable. What remains unstated is the response shape and behavior when the contract cannot be read, a minor gap for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of reading from NEAR is contextual, not a parameter description.

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 (reads from NEAR) and enumerates the exact artifacts returned: code sha256, NEP-330 source, access keys, upgrade authority, timelock, pending upgrade. That enumeration of contract-level verification facts clearly separates it from sibling tools like pusaka_audit or pusaka_inspect, which are not described as reading upgrade authority.

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 opening question, 'Should an agent trust the Pusaka contract itself?', gives a clear decision context for invoking the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it, so it does not reach the explicit routing of a 5.

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