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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is cost and fidelity: it is free, and the data is a deliberately 'small real sample' rather than a complete report. That cost/sample-size disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It doesn't mention rate limits or how small the sample is.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the most decision-relevant fact ('Free.') front-loaded and the usage instruction last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it explains the cost model and intended use. The remaining gap is the undocumented `network` parameter and its chain enum, the one thing an agent could get wrong when calling.

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 0%, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could live — yet it only references 'an address' and says nothing about the `network` parameter or that its enum values (eip155:8453 vs eip155:84532) select chains. The agent is left to guess which network is default and whether a testnet address is valid.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Returns a small real sample for an address') and enumerates the exact payload (bytecode size/hash, block number, verification and proxy status), so the agent knows what it gets. The distinction from siblings is only implicit via the 'preview' vs 'full report' framing — none of baseguard_status, base_preflight or base_risk_delta are named, so an agent must infer which to pick.

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?

'Use it to confirm connectivity before paying for a full report' gives an explicit trigger condition and an implied alternative (the paid full report). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it — e.g. for real risk assessment vs. a connectivity probe — and never references the actual sibling tools.

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