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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond these by specifying that it performs a 'honeypot / contract safety check', which is behavioral information not captured in the annotations. It adds value without contradicting any annotations, and the safety profile is already disclosed by annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise with no filler or unnecessary details, efficiently communicating the tool's role.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has both an output schema and annotations that cover safety traits. The description, while brief, is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic function. It could mention expected output format, but that is already covered by the output schema, so the description is reasonably complete for this context.

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% and the parameter is well-described in the schema ('Token contract address (0x...).'). The description does not add any additional semantics or details about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and clearly identifies the resource ('contract safety for any ERC-20 token'). It also mentions 'honeypot' which is a specific type of check, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_trade or simulate_balance, which have different purposes.

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 a token safety check is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. There is no reference to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from purpose alone.

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