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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a meaningful non-obvious behavior: a null creation result is not proof that no creator exists while the genesis backfill floor is above zero. This is useful data-integrity context beyond the annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary output fields are front-loaded, and the caveat is placed second, making the most important information immediately visible.

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 simple single-address lookup with annotations covering safety, the description covers the returned fields and an important edge case. It does not explicitly describe return formatting, but the listed fields and the caveat about null results provide enough context for an agent to interpret the tool's behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by implying the input address is a Wanchain contract and indicating what lookup results will be returned. However, it does not clarify address format, whether checksums are expected, or how to interpret the required address parameter beyond 'for a Wanchain contract.'

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 lists the data returned — creator address, creation transaction, block, and timestamp — for a Wanchain contract, so an agent can tell what the tool provides. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Retrieves' and does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_verified_contract, but the resource and output are specific enough.

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 description gives no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_verified_contract or get_address_activity. The caveat about null creation and genesis backfill is interpretation guidance, not usage-selection guidance.

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