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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that an ABI summary is always returned and that include_sources toggles the full ABI and source files, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens for unverified addresses or error conditions, leaving a gap.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the optional behavior. No wasted words; information density is appropriate and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but omits details such as expected output fields, error handling for unverified contracts, and differentiation from sibling tools. These omissions leave an agent with uncertainty about edge cases and exact return shape.

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 explains that include_sources controls whether full ABI and source files are returned, which adds semantics beyond the schema. The address parameter is only implied as the contract address from the resource, but not explicitly described.

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 specifies the resource (a Wanchain contract) and the data returned: source-verification status, provenance, an ABI summary, and optionally the full ABI and source files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_verified_contracts by focusing on a single contract's detailed verification data.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed verification details of a specific contract, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as list_verified_contracts or get_contract_creation. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended scenario.

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