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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the returned contents (code size, balance, classification), which is mildly useful, but an output schema already exists, so the incremental behavioral disclosure is thin.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core question ('is this a contract or an EOA') front-loaded before the return-value detail. Nothing is wasted.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return shape, and fully described parameters, the definition gives the agent enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the many sibling security/monitor tools.

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%, and the schema itself documents the chain default ('base') and the address parameter, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. It mentions 'address' only implicitly; the chain parameter is never referenced. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Check if an address is a smart contract or an EOA wallet') and names the concrete output fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool answers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as security.contract.scan or security.contract.events, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like security.contract.scan, monitor.watch.address, or wallet.labels. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Check', with no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions given.

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