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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that the two halves are independent, that either or both may be empty, that a miss returns found:false rather than throwing, and that the code half is reproducible via eth_getCode + keccak256. The explicit safety disclaimer ('never says an address is safe, genuine or correct') is exactly the kind of trust-boundary context an agent needs before acting.

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 passage is dense and front-loaded, leading with what the tool holds before elaborating on each half. It is somewhat long and prose-heavy, but each sentence (reproducibility, found:false semantics, safety caveat) contributes distinct information rather than restating the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values itself, and it does so thoroughly: it names both fields, explains when each is populated, and covers the empty and not-found cases. Combined with the safety framing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (chain, address) are documented in the schema itself, including that chain is optional and address is case-insensitive. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (look up) and resource (a contract address) and precisely enumerates the two returned halves, 'listings' and 'matches', so an agent knows exactly what domain the tool covers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_stock or get_manifest, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the resource name.

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?

Useful procedural guidance is present ('check it against the issuer before you act on it') and it clarifies that empty halves are normal and that found:false is an answer rather than an error. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_stock or get_manifest, so usage context is only implied.

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