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

The description discloses important behavioral details: the cost ($0.05 USDC), the chain (Base), and the exact checks performed. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any potential side effects beyond the monetary cost. The listed checks imply a non-destructive analysis, but it's not confirmed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs maximum information with no wasted words. Every segment (depth, checks, cost, chain) serves a purpose.

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 the complexity of a deep analysis tool and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks essential context: what the result looks like, how to interpret findings, or what the address parameter represents. The cost and chain info is helpful, but overall the description leaves the agent without enough to confidently invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Base' which maps to the chain parameter's default, but does not explain what 'address' refers to (e.g., token contract address) or provide any validation/format guidance. The address parameter, which is required, is completely unexplained.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a deep contract-control analysis, listing specific checks (owner()/admin, renounced, EOA-vs-multisig, proxy implementation). The implicit verb 'analyze' is understood, and the 'deep' qualifier distinguishes it from lighter scan tools like token_risk_scan.

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?

The term 'deep' implies this is a more thorough follow-up to token_risk_scan, and the cost/chain info suggests a paid Base-only analysis. However, there is no explicit 'use when' or mention of alternatives, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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