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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the return data and what it does not return, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens when there's no contract code) or side effects, though none are expected for a read-only check. Adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the core purpose and flows into specifics without wasted words. Every element adds value and the clarity benefits from its brevity.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the operation and return values sufficiently. It lacks explicit edge-case handling (e.g., no-code addresses), but the scope is modest and the description meets the core needs without omission of essential details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains the parameter's role: the address is on Base and is being checked for contract bytecode. This adds context beyond the schema's raw pattern and type, clarifying the purpose and network context of the address parameter.

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'), the resource ('Base address'), and the specific outcome (has contract bytecode), followed by what is returned (byte length, prefix, SHA-256 hash). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not dump full code, making it distinct from any potential code-fetching alternative.

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 when to use this tool (to check for contract bytecode) and hints at a lightweight alternative to dumping full code, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use it. The usage context is clear from the phrasing, but exclusions or comparisons are left to inference.

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