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

With no annotations, the description bears full disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool analyzes on-chain data (bytecode, address prefix) and returns verdicts (native_b20, prefix_impostor, etc.). It does not mention any destructive side effects or specific permissions needed, but for a read-only verification tool this is reasonable.

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 informative but somewhat verbose, containing educational material about B20 and ERC-20 differences. It could be shortened to focus on the tool's operation and outputs while maintaining clarity.

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?

The description covers the verification logic and verdicts but does not specify the output schema or format. Given no output schema, the agent may not understand how the verdict is returned (e.g., string, object). Additional detail on return structure would improve completeness.

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 system already documents both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the address's role in prefix checking, but does not provide additional technical details (e.g., address format requirements) beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states that the tool checks whether a token is a genuine Base-native B20 or an ERC-20 impostor, using bytecode and address prefix analysis. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, which focus on other finance or validation tasks.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to verify B20 authenticity) and explains the implications of each outcome. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, though the specificity makes misuse unlikely.

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