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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (bytecode) and a purpose, but not what happens for an EOA (empty result vs. error), chain scoping, or rate/behavioral limits. For a simple read tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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 short sentences, action and use case front-loaded, with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it explains the return value as bytecode but omits edge-case behavior (empty result for non-contracts) and chain context. Adequate for a minimal lookup tool but not complete.

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 address parameter ('EVM address (0x + 40 hex)'), so the schema already documents the only input. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond that, which is the baseline case.

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 and resource ('Get contract bytecode at an address'), so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_address_label or get_balance, which also operate on addresses, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The second sentence gives a concrete usage condition: 'Useful for checking if an address is a contract or a wallet.' That is clear context for when to pick this tool, though no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use get_address_label for identity) are mentioned.

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