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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement of what is inspected, whether the contract must be deployed/exists, what permissions or network access are needed, or what a successful vs failed audit implies.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency; the parenthetical internal code (CVR-100-AuditBound) consumes the only content slot without informing the caller.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and annotations covering only the safety profile, the description must explain what the audit returns and what inputs are valid. It does neither, so an agent has no basis to invoke this tool correctly.

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% and both required parameters (contract_id, contract_type) are completely undocumented in the schema. The description therefore carries the full burden and supplies nothing — no format for contract_id (address? hash? internal id?), no enumeration or expected values for contract_type beyond a single 'erc20' example.

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 is essentially the title restated plus an opaque internal code ('Contract Verify (CVR-100-AuditBound)'). It never says what 'verify' means here — static analysis, source match, bytecode hash, or address legitimacy — so an agent cannot distinguish it from defi_bridge_verify, defi_oracle_verify, or forge_verify.

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?

There is zero usage guidance: no when-to-use, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of any of the ~60 sibling tools even though several (defi_bridge_verify, defi_oracle_verify, security_zero_day) plausibly overlap. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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