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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add that the ABI summary is always returned while full ABI and source files are opt-in, but it is silent on behavior for unverified contracts and on response size/pagination for large source bundles.

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; the semicolon cleanly separates the always-returned versus optional payload. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the provenance aspect, and what each payload mode yields. No output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is appropriately kept high-level rather than exhaustive.

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 successfully explains include_sources as toggling the full ABI and source files, but leaves 'address' undefined (expected format, chain qualification) — a notable gap for an identifier-style parameter.

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?

Names a specific resource (source-verification status and provenance for a Wanchain contract) plus the extra payload (ABI summary, optional full ABI/sources). It does not reference the obvious sibling list_verified_contracts, so an agent must infer that this is the single-contract lookup vs. the enumeration tool.

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 only implied: the required address argument makes the single-contract case apparent, but the description never states when to prefer this over list_verified_contracts or get_contract_creation, nor what happens when a contract is not verified.

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