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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: parallel execution, deduped union behavior, no composite score/letter grade, fields copied unchanged, cost advantage, and payment currency. No contradictions with annotations.

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 organized with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by behavior, alternatives, and cost. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly long for a tool description. Still, no filler exists.

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 combined tool with output schema available, the description covers what the tool does, why it differs from alternatives, when not to use it, and key behavioral guarantees. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 with an example, contract_address format). The description adds slight context about 'same GoPlus data' but doesn't need to duplicate schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific purpose: a single-call combined security check running two named tools in parallel and returning both results plus a deduped union. It explicitly names the underlying tools and clearly differentiates itself from siblings like unlocks.dump_risk.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('single-call combined security check') and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives ('Do not use for token unlock/vesting risk (use unlocks.dump_risk) or if you only need one of the two checks'). This is exemplary routing.

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