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

The description reveals important behaviors beyond annotations: decimal assumptions are marked when not declared, non-token addresses return found:false, and pricing/authentication requirements are disclosed. This adds real operational context the annotations do not cover. No contradictions with the readOnly, openWorld, or idempotent hints are present.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, decimal edge case, non-token behavior, required input, pricing, and access requirements. The most important information is front-loaded. It is long but not wasteful, effectively communicating critical caveats an agent must know.

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 and rich annotations, the description covers all essential operational context: input, output behavior, error/edge cases, pricing, authentication, and network. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and interpret its results. Nothing critical is missing.

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% with the 'token' parameter described as 'Token contract', so the schema already documents the only input. The description adds that the token should be a Base token and mentions non-token behavior, but does not enrich the parameter meaning significantly beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states precisely what the tool does: returns totalSupply for any Base token, both raw and decimal-scaled, plus name and symbol. It clearly distinguishes its output from generic token queries by emphasizing usable units and the decimals handling. The verb 'returns' and resource 'totalSupply for any Base token' make the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: when you need total supply in usable units with decimal scaling, name, and symbol. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but it implicitly distinguishes itself from other token tools by focusing on supply and decimal correctness. It also explains edge cases like non-token addresses returning found:false.

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