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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context: bounded public-chain reads, OFAC matching, exact tier capabilities, missing-data semantics, non-verdict language, pricing, and trial availability. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense but front-loads the core purpose and tier differences before exclusions and disclaimers. Pricing and legal language add length, but most of the detail is useful for correct tool selection and interpretation.

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 there is no output schema, the description effectively lists the observations returned by basic and deep tiers. Combined with the annotations and explicit limitations, it gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool and interpret results without overclaiming safety.

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 must add meaning. It does so well for the tier parameter by defining basic versus deep observations, and it reinforces that the tool applies to Base contracts, though it does not separately explain the address or chain parameters beyond the schema constraints.

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 function: retrieving Base contract safety signals from bounded public-chain reads and OFAC. It clearly distinguishes basic versus deep scope and explicitly lists what is not assessed. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 useful usage context by explaining what the basic tier covers, what deep adds, and which safety dimensions are explicitly out of scope. However, it does not state when an agent should choose this tool over sibling checks or when not to use it at all.

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