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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully describes output categories: vulnerabilities, gas optimizations, and best-practice flags. However, it does not disclose whether the analysis is static/heuristic, whether it returns line-level detail, or what limitations apply.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence covers a distinct aspect: domain/outcomes, capability categories, and supported languages, making the description dense and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to carry more weight. It covers purpose and capability but omits usage guidance and expected response shape, leaving some agent expectations underspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds light meaning by mapping focus areas to concrete outcomes and echoing the supported language enum, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for 'code' or 'previousCode'.

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 concrete resource ('smart contract') with specific verbs: 'Finds vulnerabilities, suggests gas optimizations, flags best practice violations.' It clearly differentiates this code-analysis tool from transaction, token, and monitoring siblings.

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 domain ('Smart contract security analysis') and supported languages loosely imply when to use the tool, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives. An agent must infer which sibling tools this should be preferred over.

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