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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. Description adds significant behavioral detail: exact factory records read, cross-check with clanker.world, return statuses, RPC failure not charged, and payment model (x402, prepaid header, free call/day, no API key).

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?

Front-loaded with a clear purpose question, then technical mechanics, output, and pricing. Slightly dense with factory version details, but every sentence contributes to transparency or invocation requirements.

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?

Knowledge complexity is high, but the description covers purpose, input, output statuses, failure policy, and payment model. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, no critical gaps remain 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%: the single 'address' parameter is fully described as 'Token contract address' and required. Description only repeats 'Required input: address' without adding format or syntax beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: verifying whether a Base token was launched through Clanker, including factory versions and cross-check. Clearly distinguishes from generic token info or contract lookup siblings by focusing on Clanker launch provenance.

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?

Provides clear context for use—verifying a launch—but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. The question format and 'to verify a launch' imply the scenario, adequate but not exhaustive.

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