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

Annotations already declare the safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world profile. The description adds behavior beyond that: it explicitly frames the output as a heuristic estimate rather than live mempool data, which meaningfully calibrates how much the agent should trust the result. It stops short of discussing freshness, rate limits, or cost of the estimate.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded. The accuracy caveat is slightly buried in the second sentence but still earns its place by setting expectations.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter, read-only tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers purpose and the key limitation. Return values are handled by the output schema, so the only real gap is the absence of usage/routing guidance relative to sibling 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% for the single 'chain' parameter, including a full enum list, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only obliquely references the parameter via 'chain-specific DEX names' and adds no syntax or default-behavior detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a clear resource (cross-protocol spread analysis) and enumerates its output content (DEX names, cost estimates, microstructure data), but it uses no verb and never distinguishes this tool from siblings like security.mev.detect, security.mev.shield, or security.sandwich. The name says 'mev.intel' while the body describes spread analysis, leaving the agent to reconcile the two.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no list of alternatives, and no stated trigger conditions. The only qualifier, 'this is a heuristic estimate, not real-time mempool data,' is an accuracy caveat rather than routing guidance, so an agent cannot tell when this should be selected over the other MEV/security tools.

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