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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the analysis is 'free', that it covers both categorized and uncategorized powers, and that uncategorized owner-only functions are where unusual powers hide. It also names the specific opcodes (DELEGATECALL / SELFDESTRUCT / CREATE2) and the evidence/confidence behind each finding. It does not mention rate limits, latency, or whether the contract must be verified, but the scope is unusually explicit.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then lists the detailed outputs. It is long but every clause adds information about what the analysis includes. The only minor issue is that the long list of powers could be trimmed, but it is valuable for an agent deciding whether this tool matches a user's request.

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, the description is quite complete: it names the input types, the chain disambiguation, the full set of analysis categories, and the evidence/confidence aspect. It does not describe the return format or how results are presented, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the detailed enumeration of what the analysis covers.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the example 'USDC or AERO' and clarifies that chain is needed for ambiguous symbols, which reinforces the schema. It does not add format details beyond that, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Full free analysis') and a precise resource ('one contract that is in the registry'), then enumerates the exact outputs: verification, proxy pattern, admin, retained powers, dangerous opcodes, and uncategorised owner-only functions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_any_contract or list_watched_contracts, which are about checking arbitrary contracts or listing watched ones.

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 states it accepts an address or a symbol, and the schema adds that chain is required if a symbol is ambiguous. It implies this is for registry contracts and for surfacing unusual powers, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over check_any_contract or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for deep registry analysis, but exclusions are not spelled out.

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