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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and open-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: chain support is limited to Ethereum and BSC, the data source is goplus, the returned risk fields are enumerated, and the per-call price is disclosed. It stops short of discussing rate limits or failure modes, but the mutation/safety burden is low for a read-only scan.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then cleanly separated Use when / Not for / Returns / Example blocks. Every line is scannable and none is redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact return fields and providing a full example response object. Combined with the chain limitation and exclusions, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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% and both parameters already carry descriptions including the enum values and default. The description's 'Ethereum and BSC contracts only' restates the enum rather than adding new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('token contract') with an enumerated scope of risks (honeypot, rug pull, security). An agent can instantly distinguish this from token_price or orderbook_depth, which are named as the wrong tools for related questions.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections, including the concrete exclusion of native coins with no contract and the pointer to orderbook_depth / token_price for liquidity and price. This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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