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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists analysis categories but does not explain what operations are performed, whether it is read-only, how the address is processed, or what kind of result is produced. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('risk analysis') and then lists the key areas. It contains no fluff or repetition, making it efficient. It could be slightly more structured with a verb, but overall it is well-sized.

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?

The tool likely performs complex analysis across multiple dimensions, but the description provides no information about output format, return values, or how the listed aspects are evaluated. There is no output schema to compensate, and the description is too terse to fully inform the agent about what the tool will return or what side effects it might have.

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?

The schema already describes 'address' as 'Contract address', and the description reinforces that the tool analyzes smart contracts, implying the address is the contract under review. Since coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as performing smart contract risk analysis, listing specific aspects (verification, proxy, compiler, license). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other domains like yields, liquidity, or token screening. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'analyze' or 'check', making it slightly less direct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. Users must infer from the tool name and description that it's for contract-level risk assessment.

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