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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: whether this is read-only, whether it mutates state, whether authentication or a chain connection is required, whether it is rate-limited, or what a result looks like. For a security-adjacent audit tool this is a critical gap.

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 text is short, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy; there is nothing front-loaded because there is essentially nothing stated. It cannot be considered efficient when it omits everything an agent needs.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and two required parameters, the definition is completely inadequate. The description would need to explain the audit behavior, inputs, and result shape, and it does none of that.

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 0% and both parameters (contract_id, contract_type) are undocumented in the schema. The description supplies no meaning for either, not even the expected format of contract_id or the allowed values for contract_type beyond an 'erc20' example in the schema.

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 '[defi] Contract Verify (CVR-100-AuditBound)' essentially restates the tool name defi_contract_audit, swapping 'audit' for 'verify' without adding scope or distinguishing it from siblings like defi_bridge_verify, defi_oracle_verify, or defi_risk_score. The bracketed prefix and opaque code 'CVR-100-AuditBound' convey no actionable meaning about what is actually verified or returned.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many defi_* and *_verify siblings, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or context. An agent has nothing to route on beyond the name itself.

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