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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds meaningful context: it discloses the metadata scope and the heuristic nature of is_trc20 ('whether it looks like a TRC-20'). It stops short of auth/rate-limit details, but with annotations carrying that load this is solid.

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 resource, then cleanly sectioned into When/D0-not/Returns. Dense but every clause carries distinct information, especially the Returns enumeration given no output schema. Slightly listy but no wasted sentences.

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 fully by enumerating all return fields. It covers purpose, selection criteria, exclusions, and output shape — 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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema documents 'address' fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameter, so 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+resource ('TRON contract metadata') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, creator, has_abi, functions, code_hash, is_trc20). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tron_read_contract and tron_check_address_risk.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' (before calling a contract, to distinguish unverified from published) and an explicit 'Do not use' with the alternative named (tron_check_address_risk for risk/backdoor analysis). Nothing is left to inference.

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