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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful negative scope (no price, safety, or holder concentration assessment), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss caching, chain support limits, or failure modes for non-contract addresses.

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 action and return fields. Slight redundancy: the field list ('total supply, decimals, symbol, name') is effectively restated in the second sentence, which costs a little efficiency.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage carry the structural burden. The description covers purpose, scope, and routing, leaving no functional gap for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (address, chain with default 'base') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, validation, or chain-support detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 ('Get') and resource ('ERC20 token total supply, decimals, symbol, and name from on-chain data'), naming the exact fields returned. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling token tools by scope.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('contract-level supply metadata') and names three alternatives with their conditions: token.risk, token.price, token.holders for the concerns this tool does not cover. Nothing is left to inference.

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