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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description reinforces this by saying it only reads an ABI and flags functions. It adds valuable behavioral context: pricing, free tier, no wallet/API key required, Base chain, and that an unverified contract is itself a red flag. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 description is a single dense paragraph with a clear front-loaded hook and then useful specifics: behavior, flagged functions, red-flag heuristic, required input, and pricing/auth. The marketing phrase 'Diligence a price feed can't give' adds some fluff but is minor and does not distract significantly.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers behavior, input, chain, pricing, authentication, and the unverified-contract caveat well. It does not explain the exact return shape, but the output schema shoulders that burden, so the description is sufficiently complete for safe 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?

The only parameter, address, already has 100% schema description coverage as 'Contract address'. The description only adds 'Required input: address,' which does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 opens with a concrete question and immediately states the exact behavior: reads a verified contract's ABI and flags owner-callable abuse functions. It enumerates specific function types (mint, pause, blacklist, setFee/setTax, withdraw/sweep, upgrade), making the resource and action unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools even without naming them.

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 description implies when to use it ('What can the owner do to you?', 'Diligence a price feed can't give') and gives required input, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like ai_contract_risk or rug_score, nor does it mention exclusion conditions. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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