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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real context beyond them: the underlying eth_getCode/eth_call/eth_getStorageAt passthrough, and the caveat that token metadata is best-effort and may be absent on non-standard contracts. It does not discuss latency, rate limits, or failure behavior for unreachable chains.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by implementation and reliability caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the three result categories and warns that metadata may be missing. For a two-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, nothing material is left undefined.

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 (chain slug with the listChains pointer, and 0x-prefixed address) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing 'an address on a chain' and no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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 (inspect/resolve) and resource (an address on a chain) and enumerates exactly what it determines: contract-vs-EOA, ERC-20 metadata, and EIP-1967 proxy implementation. This distinguishes it from siblings like rpcCall, getAccountBalance, or getNFTs, which do not do address classification.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated outputs — an agent can infer 'call this when you need to know what an address is' — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. versus rpcCall for raw eth_getCode).

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