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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a notable trait — the 250 sats L402 payment — which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about what happens on payment failure, latency, or the form of the audit result, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and appends the payment requirement. Nothing is wasted, though the pricing clause sits somewhat awkwardly alongside the purpose statement.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema and there is no output schema to explain, but with no annotations and no return-value description, the definition is only minimally complete for a paid audit tool. Details about the audit result format or failure modes are absent.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about 'network' or 'code_or_address', so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb (audit) and resource (smart contract) plus the exact scope of checks: honeypot, tax, and mint backdoor. This clearly differentiates it from sibling risk tools like mev_risk, solana_risk, and guardrail_verify.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus mev_risk or solana_risk, nor any mention of prerequisites or expected inputs beyond the schema. The audit scope implies a use case but never states it, so the agent must infer.

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