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 genuine non-obvious trait — cost and payment mechanism (200 sats via L402) — but says nothing about what the tool produces, whether code is deployed or merely returned, or any side effects of a code-synthesis operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the action and resource, with the cost caveat parenthesized at the end. Efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool that both generates and audits contracts.

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?

For a code-synthesis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical context: what form the output takes (source code, diff, audit report), whether it writes or deploys anything, and whether the L402 payment is required before or after the call.

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 (assembly_id, contract_type with its enumerated values) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 specific verbs (synthesizes, audits) and a precise resource (Sui Move contract extensions for EVE Frontier Smart Assemblies). This domain specificity separates it from the generic sibling contract_audit, though the dual synthesize/audit purpose leaves some ambiguity about which mode is primary.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over contract_audit, code_sandbox, or agent_schema_enforcer — all plausible alternatives for the same task. The 'audits' wording actively overlaps with the contract_audit sibling without resolving which to call.

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