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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses returned fields, optional raw storage decoding, supported chains, payment mechanism, price, GET support, and a free example. It stops short of error behavior and invocation limits beyond price.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core question and return fields, then adds chain, payment, and example details. It is dense but not redundant; pricing and GET notes could be tightened but each sentence has a plausible operational use.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry return-value and safety context. It enumerates the returned proxy fields and payment model well enough for correct invocation, though it omits failure modes and some corner-case 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only a general mention of optional raw storage slots and chain coverage, not meaningfully extending parameter 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 a specific question and resource: checking whether a contract is an upgradeable proxy and locating its current code. It clearly distinguishes the operation from generic contract inspection by naming the proxy standard, implementation, admin, and beacon outputs.

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?

Usage is implied by the opening question and the supported chain list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions. An agent can infer the tool's niche, but the definition does not route between this and any sibling.

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