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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context beyond that: the analysis window is limited to 5 transactions before/after the target in the same block, and it is EVM-only.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and framed by the analysis constraint and platform restriction. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description is complete for invocation, with the only meaningful omission being sibling differentiation and any note on cost/latency tradeoffs versus the heavier MEV 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%, so both txHash and the fully enumerated chain list are already documented in the schema. The description's 'EVM only' restates what the chain enum conveys, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (detection) and resource (sandwich attacks/MEV) with the scope of analysis (5 tx before/after in the same block). Clear enough to distinguish from generic MEV tooling, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like security.sandwich, security.mev.intel, or security.mev.shield.

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 word 'Quick' implies a lightweight check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Given three closely related MEV/sandwich siblings, the lack of routing guidance is a real gap.

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