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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it names the backing sources (GoPlus/Honeypot.is), the specific risk categories checked, and the cost model (paid in USDC on Base). This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful operational expectations.

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 three punchy sentences, with the most important usage instruction front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, what not to use it for, and the cost. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, existing output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description covers all essential operational context: purpose, trigger condition, exclusions, source, and payment. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are individually documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's job: verify ERC-20 contracts for honeypot, rug-pull, malicious taxes, and mintability risks before swaps. It specifies a concrete verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling security tools such as security.contract_health_audit or security.token_diagnostic, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before executing any on-chain swap. It also includes clear when-not-to-use exclusions: not for market price discovery or liquidity depth. It stops short of naming alternative tools for those exclusions, so it doesn't fully meet the bar for a 5.

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