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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares read-only, idempotent, no side effects, names the underlying engine and attribution, and states the return type. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on unsupported chains, which keeps it from a 5 for a no-annotation tool.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the following sections are clearly labeled. The trigger-phrase list overlaps somewhat with the WHEN TO USE section, adding minor redundancy, but every line is scannable and purposeful.

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 read-only screening tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, return type, and side-effect profile. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'structured risk summary' contains, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or chain-specific constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (screen) and resource (EVM token contract) plus the exact risk categories checked (honeypot, blacklist, high buy tax, unverified source, ownership renounced). The sibling tool 'health' is unrelated, so no confusion is possible; an agent can route to this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE scenarios, trigger phrases, and a NOT FOR clause for price predictions and trading advice. The boundary conditions are fully specified, leaving nothing to inference.

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