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

Crucially, the description provides behavioral traits not in the schema or annotations, such as the operational cost ('Price: $0.22 per call, USDC on Base') and performance ('Fast pre-audit screen'). This is highly valuable context for execution planning.

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 perfectly sized and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes scope, and the second efficiently communicates operational constraints (cost/speed) with zero fluff.

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?

While annotations are missing, the combination of a clear scope, defined parameters, and critical operational information (cost and speed) makes this definition highly complete for an execution-focused agent.

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?

Since the schema coverage is 100%, the schema itself defines the semantics of the 'contract' and 'chain' parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what is already present in the structured input definition.

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 defines the scope as 'Basic DeFi risk,' specifying the types of checks performed (contract exists, proxy, whales) and framing it as a 'Fast pre-audit screen.' This differentiates it as a lightweight alternative to a deeper analysis.

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 term 'Basic' and the explicit reference to a 'pre-audit screen' guide the agent on the appropriate context for use. It implies a need for a quick initial assessment before committing to a more intensive or deep analysis tool.

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