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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose useful traits: the tool is heuristic, returns a 0-100 score, provides explainable flags, and costs $0.01 USDC. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether payment is mandatory or optional, or how failures are surfaced.

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 extremely terse and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by the cost detail. No word is wasted. It could be slightly more informative without harming concision, but as written it is appropriately sized.

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-format explanation is not needed. However, with zero parameter coverage and no annotations, the description leaves critical invocation details—chain/address semantics and payment handling—unexplained. It is too minimal for an agent to confidently use without external examples.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not describe what 'chain' and 'address' should contain, nor how the 'payment' parameter should be provided beyond a currency hint. The agent is left to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: a 'Heuristic 0-100 token risk screen with explainable flags'. It conveys the tool's purpose and output format. However, it does not differentiate it from the sibling 'precheck', which could plausibly overlap as a preliminary screening tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like precheck, quote_buy, quote_sell, or token_snapshot. The only contextual hint is the $0.01 USDC cost, which implies a paid check but does not explain preconditions or ordering.

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