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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers extensively. It discloses the pipeline (fetches verified source, runs static detectors), the specific vulnerability categories, the live-on-chain risks (upgradeable proxies, self-destructed contracts), the optional deep pass with graceful degradation, the output format (ALLOW/REVIEW/BLOCK + risk score), Ed25519 signing, and pricing. This far exceeds typical transparency and gives the agent a strong behavioral model.

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 a single dense paragraph that is efficiently packed with useful information. It front-loads the core purpose and then expands into details, output, and pricing. Though it is long, every sentence carries substantive info; the only minor issue is a stream-of-consciousness structure with em-dashes and parentheticals, which slightly hurts skimmability.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description does a thorough job covering inputs, processing, outputs, and pricing. It explains the audit steps, the risk flags, and the result format. It could be more explicit about error conditions (e.g., unverified contracts) or exact response JSON shape, but given the constraints, it is nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states; the `deep` parameter and `address` are fully documented in the schema. While the description mentions 'Optional Claude deep-pass', it restates the schema's `deep` description without adding new semantics, so no bonus is warranted.

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 tool performs a 'Full smart-contract security audit for any Base address' with a specific verb (audit) and resource (smart contract on Base). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it audits 'source + DEPLOYED reality + AI, SIGNED' and contrasts with manual audits, making its unique value proposition explicit.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for comprehensive audits that check both source code and deployed reality, with a comparison to manual audits ('Cheaper than a manual audit, and unlike one it audits the contract as actually deployed'). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative sibling tools for simpler checks, so it misses the 'when-not-to' guidance.

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