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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It transparently states that 'match' can be 'unchecked' when bytecode comparison hasn't happened, that unresolved promises 'say so,' that mainnet and testnet return different answers due to different builds, and that no safety score/rating/badge exists and none will be added. This goes far beyond basic behavioral description.

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 front-loaded with a purpose sentence, then a detailed contents list, then a warning paragraph. While moderately long, every sentence adds value and the structure is logical. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but it remains well-organized for a complex payload.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent will receive: specific fields, the meaning of key values (including edge cases like unchecked matches and unresolved promises), and network-dependent behavior. It leaves no critical ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (network) with enumeration and a default. The description adds meaningful context: testnet carries a 'far deeper book' and the two networks run different builds, so a testnet observation isn't a mainnet fact. This enriches the parameter's semantics beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose as returning what can be checked about contracts and the last check's results, then enumerates the specific contents: addresses, implementations, bytecode hashes, upgradeability position, privileged-function map, audit reference, and five structural promises. It clearly differentiates from a verdict-provider by saying 'the verdict is the reader's,' making its scope precise.

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 explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, but it does provide practical usage context: it warns about interpreting 'match' as unchecked where bytecode hasn't been compared, notes that mainnet and testnet differ, and advises reading fields rather than impressions. This is helpful but not a comprehensive usage guide or alternative exclusion.

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