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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It openly details what the analysis returns, including evidence/confidence, reachable DELEGATECALL/SELFDESTRUCT/CREATE2 opcodes, and uncategorized owner-only functions, plus the 'free' nature. This goes beyond a simple 'reads data' and sets clear expectations about the depth and limitations of the analysis.

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 sentence that lists numerous outputs in an organized, parenthetical-heavy structure. It has no filler and front-loads the key purpose ('Full free analysis'), but the length and dense enumeration make it slightly less scannable than a shorter, bulleted version.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input format, all major output categories, the confidence/evidence aspect, and even mentions the uncategorized functions where unusual powers hide. An agent can predict exactly what it will receive and what constraints apply.

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 100%, and the description adds only a reiteration of the contract parameter format ('address or a symbol such as USDC'). It does not explain nuances like symbol resolution or chain ambiguity beyond what the schema already contains, so it provides baseline value only.

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 uses a specific verb ('Full free analysis') and enumerates the exact resource and outputs: verification, proxy pattern, implementation address, admin key type, retained powers with evidence/confidence, reachable dangerous opcodes, and uncategorized owner-only functions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_watched_contracts and recent_power_changes, which target different queries.

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 clearly states the tool operates on 'one contract that is in the registry' and accepts an address or symbol. This gives strong contextual guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for contracts not in the registry), leaving some routing to inference.

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