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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: open access with no key, exact pricing and payment mechanism (x402, $0.002 per successful call), that failed calls are not charged, that only verified contracts are returned, and that source files are excluded. This is rich behavioral transparency for a read-only tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs essential behavioral details (return fields, limitations, pricing) into a compact paragraph. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters), full schema coverage, annotations covering safety profile, and an output schema handling return values, the description is complete. It adds critical information about pricing, payment, and limitations that an agent needs to invoke the 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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints for address or chainId beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource (EVM contract) and provider (Sourcify) along with the exact status data returned: match type, compiler, contract name, ABI counts, and proxy implementations. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is clear from the resource and provider.

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 by the description: use this to check verification status of an EVM contract. It gives behavioral constraints (only verified contracts, unverified gives 404) but does not state when to choose this over alternatives or mention sibling tools.

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