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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by disclosing that unpublished addresses return "unknown" with a scan link rather than erroring, and by scoping out risk/score/verdict output. That is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the trigger condition, then output contents, then the unknown-address edge case. Dense but every clause carries information; the em-dash construction is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description bears the burden of describing returns — and it does list the key result fields plus the not-found case. A little more on response shape/ordering would make it complete, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 the address pattern and the chainId default (4663, Robinhood Chain) are already documented. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: it resolves one project from a contract address and enumerates what it returns (activity status, 30-day ship records, last ship with source, name binding). That content list does implicitly separate it from siblings like get_contract or get_project_snapshot, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate explicitly.

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 whenever the user pastes a contract" is a clear, actionable trigger condition. It also clarifies the negative boundary (no risk reading, score or verdict), but stops short of saying which sibling to prefer for those other questions.

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