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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'checks' contract state and CoinGecko listing, conveying a read-only behavior and external dependency on CoinGecko, but lacks explicit safety guarantees, error handling, or rate-limit disclosure.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose with a clear phrase and then elaborate. No unnecessary words.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description gives a general idea of the operation but omits what the tool returns. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the absence of return format details or edge-case behavior leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 only parameter 'address' is already described in the schema as 'Jetton master contract address', so the description adds minimal extra meaning. The mention of 'risk analysis' and 'contract state' provides context but doesn't introduce semantics beyond the schema's 100% 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 identifies the tool's function: performing risk analysis on Jettons (TON tokens) by checking contract state and CoinGecko listing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other TON aspects like DEX volume, bridges, or stablecoin risk.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for Jetton risk assessment, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as using ton_stablecoin_risk for stablecoin risk.

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