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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: 'Keyless, live on-chain' (no API key, real-time data), the source (GoPlus Security), and the specific checks performed. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what the tool does and its side-effect-free nature.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose, then the detection list, output format, and usage guidance. It contains no filler, but it is somewhat long (over 60 words). It earns its place by providing specific details an agent needs, though it could be broken into bullets for easier scanning.

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 explicitly states the return value ('red_flags[] list plus raw GoPlus Security facts'). It covers the core inputs, the checks performed, and the usage context. It doesn't mention any error conditions or edge cases, but for a read-only screening tool it is sufficiently complete.

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%—both parameters have descriptions. The description reinforces the input pattern ('Pass the token CONTRACT ADDRESS and the chain') but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions chain can be a name or numeric GoPlus chain_id, which the schema already states. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('risk screening') and resource ('EVM token') with a clear list of supported chains, and distinguishes it from the sibling token_risk_solana by the EVM scope. It enumerates what it detects (honeypots, taxes, mintable supply, etc.) and the return format, so an agent can immediately understand the tool's function.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use before buying/interacting with any token' and example queries. It does not explicitly mention the Solana alternative, but the chain list implicitly tells the agent when to use this vs token_risk_solana. It could have been more direct about the EVM/Solana split, but it is clear enough.

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