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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond by disclosing cost ($0.004 USDC per successful call), the payment path (x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and that failed calls are free — material facts for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It also discloses its own reliability limits, which is exactly the kind of information annotations cannot carry.

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?

One dense but front-loaded sentence covers capability, scope, limits and caveats, followed by a separate pricing sentence. Every clause carries distinct information: checks, size cap, disclaimer, cost, payment chain, and failure policy.

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?

Output schema exists so return format needn't be explained, and the description nonetheless covers inputs, size limits, what is detected, reliability caveats and billing behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'source' parameter is fully documented with its own 10–60000 character bounds, so the description adds little. Saying 'snippet or file' is slightly ambiguous against a schema that accepts only source text, risking an agent passing a file path rather than the code itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Heuristic Solidity linter for a snippet or file') and enumerates exactly which four bug classes it flags, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling audit/scoring tools. The explicit 'Not an audit' framing further separates it from anything that sounds like a full security review.

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?

Gives clear conditions ('up to 60000 characters', Solidity source input) and an explicit exclusion ('Not an audit; misses most real bugs'), which tells the agent when the result is insufficient. It never names a sibling alternative, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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