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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real context the annotations cannot: per-call price ($0.12 via x402 on Base), the prepaid x-credit-token header path for unlimited calls, no free tier, and no API key required. It stops short of noting latency, caching, or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core capability and payment terms are front-loaded, but marketing filler ('The flagship report', 'agent-ready intelligence you can't get free') consumes sentences that do not help an agent decide or invoke. Trimming the promotional clauses would leave a materially tighter definition.

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 correctly does not enumerate return fields, and it covers cost, auth path, and required input for a one-parameter tool. The remaining gap is explicit routing against sibling report tools, which matters given how many overlapping DD/risk siblings exist.

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?

The single address parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as 'Token contract address', and the description only restates it as 'Required input: address'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting; no extra format or chain caveats are added.

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 ('AI-written due-diligence verdict for a Base token') and enumerates the aggregated inputs (token risk, holder concentration, price/liquidity, OFAC sanctions) plus the output shape (avoid → favorable). It does not name which sibling report tools it supersedes (deep_dd, token_risk, ai_contract_risk), so an agent must still infer the boundary itself.

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?

It implies usage ('One call, agent-ready intelligence') and states the required input and price, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus the many adjacent token-risk and DD tools in the sibling list. Selection between this and deep_dd/token_risk 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.