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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds genuine context beyond them: analysis is purely local ('No external APIs') and chain-restricted ('EVM only'). It stops short of return-detail or rate-limit disclosure, which is minor given the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by detection scope, constraints, and the sibling exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a two-parameter read-only scan, the description covers purpose, detection scope, environment constraints, and alternative routing — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both the chain enum and the address parameter; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the EVM-only constraint on chain but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (scan), resource (smart contract), and method (bytecode analysis), then enumerates what it detects: selfdestruct, delegatecall, proxy, ownership. It also names the sibling it is not (token.risk), so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives both positive and negative guidance: use for bytecode-level contract security signals, and it is explicitly not a complete audit or token-market assessment with token.risk pointed to as the alternative. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not routing.

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