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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses supported chains, the default chain, and a per-call price of $0.003 USDC, which is operational context an agent needs before calling. It still omits error behavior, whether the address must be checksummed, and whether results are cached, so it is not fully transparent.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the dense comma-separated enumeration is efficient for a multi-feature inspection tool. The jargon (EIP-1967, EIP-1167) is compact rather than padded, though the telegraphic style makes it read as a feature dump rather than prose.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating what is returned (type classification, bytecode size, proxy slots, ownership, token standards, Sourcify name), which is exactly the missing information. Gaps remain around address format and failure modes for an address with no code.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does restate the allowed chains and adds the useful 'base (default)' information the enum alone does not convey, but it says nothing about the expected format of 'address' (hex vs ENS vs checksummed), leaving the most important parameter under-specified.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('inspect an address') and then enumerates exactly what is determined: contract vs wallet vs EIP-7702 delegated EOA, bytecode size, EIP-1967 slots, clone target, owner(), token standards, verified name. That enumeration separates it from siblings like token_check, token_metadata and wallet_balances without opening any schema.

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?

'Use this to inspect an address' plus the enumerated outputs gives a clear trigger condition for the tool, and the chain list with 'base (default)' tells the agent how to scope the call. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of the top band.

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