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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return fields, the formatted-vs-raw supply distinction, supported chains, the default chain, and the cost ($0.001 USDC). It does not say what happens for a non-ERC20 address or on error/revert, which is the remaining gap for a schema-less, annotation-less tool.

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 the selection condition and output fields, then chains, then price, then the alternative. No filler sentences; every clause adds actionable information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: what comes back, on which chains, at what cost, and what this tool is not for. Only failure/edge-case behavior (non-token address, unverified contract) is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does for `chain` by listing all five accepted values and declaring base as the default — a fact absent from the schema. The `address` parameter is left implicit, which is a minor gap given it is self-evidently the ERC20 contract address.

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 the exact resource (an ERC20's name, symbol, decimals and total supply, both formatted and raw) and the concrete use case (formatting amounts). It also differentiates from the nearest sibling by naming token_check and contrasting scope.

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?

Explicit selection rule: use this when you *only* need the metadata fields, and it is explicitly 'cheaper than token_check'. The related risk-check tool is called out with its own scope (honeypot/owner/liquidity), so the agent can route correctly.

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