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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral trait that analysis is purely static bytecode inspection (no on-chain simulation), which implies false negatives are possible, and it flags the tool as free. It does not state what the response contains, whether results are cached, or any rate/quota constraints.

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 dense sentence with the tool class front-loaded and the detection categories following. No filler, though the list of check names (isBlacklisted, setBlacklist) is compact jargon that could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return semantics, and it does not: an agent cannot tell whether it receives a boolean, a risk score, or matched findings. What it checks and its position as a first stage are clear, but the result shape is left entirely unspecified.

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 100%, so every parameter (chain_id with default 8453, token_address, bytecode_override) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or interplay guidance, such as how bytecode_override relates to token_address. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('static bytecode scanner for honeypot indicators on DEX tokens') and enumerates the exact detection classes: blacklist manipulation, transfer taxes/100% sell fee traps, trading freeze backdoors, selfdestruct. The 'Stage 1' prefix implicitly positions it ahead of deep_semantic_audit, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Stage 1 Free static' implies this is the cheap first-pass check run before deeper analysis, which is useful implied sequencing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement that it is insufficient on its own for a final safety verdict, and no named alternative for full audits.

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