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 mentions the checks performed but doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has rate limits. It also doesn't describe the nature of the output (e.g., numeric score, category), leaving the agent uncertain about side effects and return format.

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 purpose and includes the key inputs and checks. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 lacks an output schema, so the description should clarify what the returned risk score looks like (range, interpretation, labels) and any caveats. It also does not mention whether the address must be an existing contract or how to handle invalid addresses. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 provides full coverage for the single 'address' parameter, describing it as 'Token contract address on Arbitrum'. The description adds context about how the address is used (to check verification, proxy, activity) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the tool computes a risk score for an Arbitrum token given its contract address, and lists the checks performed (verification, proxy status, activity). This distinguishes it from many sibling tools focused on bridges, gas, or yields, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from arb_token_screening, which may overlap in purpose.

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 when a token risk score is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like arb_token_screening or arb_stablecoin_risk. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites beyond having a contract address.

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