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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose important traits: each event carries before/after values, the detection window, and a severity level. However, it does not mention sort order, pagination behavior, read-only guarantees, or any permissions/rate-limit considerations.

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?

Four compact sentences, each earning its place: the first frames the tool, the second describes returned event fields, the third defines severity, and the fourth gives the usage trigger. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values; it does by listing before/after values, detection window, and severity. All parameters are optional and covered by the schema. Minor missing details like default ordering or how filters combine do not prevent correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no deeper meaning beyond what the input schema already contains; it mentions severity levels, but the enum in the schema already documents that.

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 what the tool reports ('what actually changed behind the watched contracts') and gives concrete event types: implementation swapped, owner moved, power appeared/disappeared, verification lost. This specific scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_contract_powers or check_any_contract, which focus on current state or general checks.

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?

It explicitly provides a natural-language trigger: 'Use this to answer "has anything changed behind this contract recently?"' and scopes the tool to watched contracts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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