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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: this is a paid call (0.020 USDC on Base or Solana), which an agent must know before invoking. It does not disclose latency, whether payment is per-call or how it is settled, or whether partial results are returned on failure.

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, front-loaded with the purpose statement and closing with the cost fact that matters for invocation decisions. Every clause is load-bearing (either a check type or the price), though the run-on enumeration makes it harder to scan than a two-sentence structure would.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. However, for a high-complexity, paid, multi-check audit tool, the description omits how the aggregate verdict is shaped (does it fail fast or report per-check?) and gives no pointer to when the narrower sibling tools are preferable.

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 67% and the description adds no direct parameter explanation beyond the passing mention that payment happens 'on Base or Solana,' which only loosely hints that chain_id is meaningful (the schema gives it a default of 8453 with no description). With the schema already documenting target_address and counterparty_wallet, baseline 3 is appropriate, but the undocumented chain_id remains a gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Enterprise 360-degree security audit bundle') and enumerates the five constituent checks (bytecode/proxy, DEX rug-risk, sanctions screening, EIP-712 permits, prompt-injection firewalling). It is clearly a superset of several siblings (checkWalletSanctions, inspectBaseToken, auditEip712Signature), so an agent can infer the bundle relationship, though the description never explicitly says it replaces those calls.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: framing it as a 'bundle combining' five checks, plus the explicit 0.020 USDC price, signals a one-call-versus-many-calls tradeoff without ever saying 'use this instead of the individual audit tools' or when not to use it. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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