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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost of $0.003 USDC, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though 'check' implies it), nor does it describe the return format or potential errors. Disclosure is 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and cost. It has zero fluff and every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and cost, but it omits the expected return type (boolean), error handling, and any caveats about 'live' data. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema provides the address parameter with a regex pattern, but the description adds no semantic information about the parameter beyond calling it 'an address'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the action ('check live Base bytecode') and the outcome (determine if an address is a deployed contract). It's specific and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like base_contract_info. The purpose is well-defined.

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 description implies usage when you need to verify if an address is a contract, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like base_contract_info. The context is implied rather than stated.

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