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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context about what analysis dimensions are checked (proxy status, ownership renouncement, mint/freeze authority), which is not in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose latency, rate limits, coverage gaps, or what the risk output contains. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the per-chain scope, then the sibling exclusions. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler. The structure would be a model for other tool definitions.

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?

Given 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it checks per chain, and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing material 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% – both 'address' and 'chain' are documented in the schema, and the chain parameter has an exhaustive enum with explicit EVM vs non-EVM grouping. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting, and here the schema is excellent.

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+resource ('Analyze a token's risk profile') and then enumerates exactly what dimensions are checked per chain family (EVM: verification, proxy, ownership, liquidity; Solana: mint/freeze authority, supply, metadata). It further distinguishes itself from three named siblings by explicitly listing what it is NOT.

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?

This is an unusually strong definition of scope. It explicitly states when to use it ('token-specific market and contract risk') and then names three alternatives with their respective scopes: security.contract.scan (bytecode-only scan), wallet.credit_score (wallet credit), and analyze.risk_dashboard (composite address view). An agent cannot confuse this with siblings after reading this sentence.

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