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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the cost ($1.00 per call, paid in USDC over x402) and the output type (scan report). It does not mention auth prerequisites or error scenarios, but the cost and payment method are significant behavioral disclosures that go beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. The first sentence explains what the tool checks, the second covers output and cost. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a due diligence tool: it lists the risk checks, states output type (scan report), and reveals cost. It lacks detail on the report's structure (e.g., risk scores, pass/fail) and the relationship between chain_id and platform_id, but these are partially covered by the schema. Given no output schema, a bit more detail would improve, but the current level is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters (chain_id, platform_id, contract_address, subscription_token) already described. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters; it only mentions cost, which is not a parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check an Ethereum or EVM token contract before buying' with specific risk checks (rug pull, hidden tax, liquidity legitimacy, holder concentration). It identifies the resource and action effectively. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling base_token_verification, despite the 'Ethereum or EVM' scope being somewhat ambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage context ('before buying') and the tool's purpose is evident. However, it offers no exclusions or references to alternatives, such as when to use base_token_verification instead. The guidance is clear but lacks comparative direction.

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