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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what is returned (contract type, verification, name, proxy status, counts, owner presence) and what is withheld (decision fields listed by name). It calls itself a 'free preview,' indicating partial information. This is transparent about the operation's behavior and limitations.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first establishes scope and purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third provides usage routing. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains what the agent will receive (return fields), what is intentionally omitted (decision fields), and when to use an alternative. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this tool and interpret results.

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%, with each parameter already described ('Default base.' for chain, '0x-prefixed 20-byte address.' for address). The tool description does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it only contextualizes the overall purpose. Thus the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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's purpose: 'Free preview for ANY verified EVM contract on base, ethereum or polygon — including addresses not in the registry.' It specifies the resource (verified EVM contract), the scope (three chains), and mentions the extension beyond the registry. It distinguishes itself from get_contract_powers by noting the preview nature and withheld decision fields.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use get_contract_powers first if the contract is already in the registry — that is free and complete.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the sibling. It also implies this tool is for contracts not in the registry or for a quick preview, covering both when and when-not to use.

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