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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, yet the description adds critical interpretation caveats: flagged_as_counterfeit=false is not proof of authenticity, true_token_address is only set when the flag is true, and it discloses the GoPlus fields used. This is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs to avoid a false-negative conclusion.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then the source fields, then the caveats, then exclusions and cost. Every clause carries decision-relevant information despite the run-on style.

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 check with an output schema present, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the false-positive/false-negative interpretation, the field-level provenance, and the cost model. Nothing an agent needs to call or correctly interpret it 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% with both parameters documented (chain_id, contract_address), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format details for the inputs; its detail (true_token_address) concerns an output field, so the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource: check whether a contract impersonates a known mainstream asset, with a concrete example ('fake USDC'). It also names the sibling tools it is not (security.token_risk, security.contract_health_audit), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gives when-not-to-use: 'No honeypot/tax/LP checks here - use security.token_risk / security.contract_health_audit for those.' It also notes the shared upstream call and that there is no extra upstream cost, which guides the selection decision versus siblings.

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